Jump to content

bb.king

Members
  • Posts

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bb.king

  1. And thanks for your reply KBF. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this thread as I'm not trying to convince anyone about whether or not climate change is real (you can probably guess which side I'm on). This thread could be 100 pages and no one will change their mind. I just thought I'd address your points. You're correct that even over the 20th century that there have been large decadal variations in the climate, and that the observable climate record is quite short. These are significant issues, a valid criticism, and not easy to address. About the sun, I realise that there are other potentially natural causes that could be related to climate change. I only discussed that particular one because had been mentioned earlier, not because it's the only possible cause. Regarding Stephen Schneider, you're right that he did publish a paper in the journal Science in 1971 projecting global cooling. And the media latched on to it and ran with it. He also soon realised that he was wrong and published a retraction a couple years later. Now, you might call that "flip-flopping", but in the world of scientific research we call that collecting the best available you can and deriving the best possible model to explain it. And then, if more data becomes available that shows your model is wrong, you admit it's wrong and revise or discard your model. It's how science works and how scientific progress is made. It's a lose-lose situation - if scientists stick to their guns they are rigid, dogmatic and resistant to change; however, if they revise their theories then they can't make of their minds and don't actually know anything. The link you posted didn't go to Schneider's paper but to the website of John L. Daly. I've never heard of him so I googled him. According toWikipedia he was a "teacher and self-declared Greenhouse skeptic". As far as I can tell he doesn't appear to have had any scientific qualifications related to climate science so I would consider his views to be highly suspect. I did attempt to find Schneider's original paper to look at it, but the library at my institute doesn't have issues of Science dating back to 1971. I also wouldn't put a lot of stock into Nimoy's "science" show, and I don't think you do either since you also said "science" show. I remember watching that show a long, long time ago with one episode where they talked about how plants grow better when exposed to classical music compared with heavy metal. Not the best source of information. On a personal note, I have to say that I find it somewhat irksome and insulting when you refer to scientists as fear-mongers, telling whopping stories and creating scams. It's nothing like that - it's simply attempting to come up with the best theories based on the best currently available data. I don't want to go too much into what I do personally, but in my field I face the same criticism. I'm a seismologist and one thing we do is develop the best seismic hazard and risk models based on all of the current and past data. We use that to determine how at risk a particular area is from earthquakes based on what is likely the largest possible earthquake in that area and how often they occur. Every 10 years or so, as more data is collected and more research is done these models are updated. Sometimes the models change significantly, often because improved technology (more powerful computers, improved methods of collecting/analysing data). People then sometimes accuse us of using scare tactics and fear-mongering (literally the words that they use). We're not trying to scare anyone - we're trying to produce the best possible science and present the facts, and present it to policy makers so they can be informed on what the risk is. As a specific example I'll use the Cascadia subduction zone (and no, I don't work for the Canadian government). Living in Kelowna you've probably at least heard of it. Prior to the early 1990's it was thought that it wasn't capable of producing magnitude 9 size earthquakes like the 2004 Indian Ocean or 2011 Japanese earthquake. That was based on the best available evidence at the time. However, in the early 1990's new techniques such as highly accurate GPS measurements along with more powerful computer modelling techniques showed that it was capable of producing magnitude 9 earthquakes. In addition, field research showed that these earthquakes had happened a number of times in the past. As a result, seismologists changed their thinking and now know another earthquake like that will happen again - not if, but when. Some of these seismologists had careers which spanned both era's and changed their thinking based on the data. Does that mean they should be ridiculed and scorned for changing their minds? If you watched a show from the 70's/80's where they said an earthquake like that wasn't possible would you post a video and use that as evidence that you can't believe anything they say? Are they fear-mongers for realising that this is a serious threat to the Pacific Northwest? A good scientist is open-minded and quite willing to change their thinking when new data/results warrant it. Anyways, I don't want to get into any big arguments as no one is going to change their minds, so I am now going to bow out of this discussion gracefully. I'll just add that I do respect your opinions KBF as you are clearly knowledgeable about the subject of climate change and backup your statements with sources instead of simply stating your opinion as fact.
  2. I thought I'd wade in here with a few thoughts, just to discuss a few points people have made (WARNING: very long post). First off, I have a doctorate degree in Earth Sciences, have worked as an active researcher for a number of years, and have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm NOT a climate scientist, so I don't have any credentials/expertise in that field. What I do have is an extensive background in Earth Science and I know how the scientific process works from a research perspective. I also have friends/colleagues who are climate scientists and actively involved in leading research in the field. If you really want to understand the topic of climate change you need to go to the original source which is peer-reviewed scientific publications - not blogs, magazine articles, CNN, etc. The problem is that most people don't have access to the publications, and they're highly technical and require an appropriate background to really understand them. As far as the debate goes there are two very important things where the debate is pretty much over among people with the credentials necessary to really understand the topic. First, since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have pumped unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is very efficient at trapping heat. No debate there. Second, there is almost no debate about whether Earth's climate is getting warmer. The real debate is over what the connection is between human produced CO2 and warming, and whether there are other significant natural factors that also come in to play. Given the first two points, there really is no debate that humans have had a significant effect on global warming. The question is what the contribution is of natural causes, what steps (if any) can be taken to mitigate the effects, and what the cost-benefit is (i.e. is it worth taking any steps). One topic that has been brought up in this thread is that the Earth naturally goes through variations in climate. True. In fact, the Earth's average temperature throughout its geologic history has actually been several degrees warmer than it currently is, and this is not even including the first few hundred million years when Earth was essentially a ball of molten rock. A well known example is the 135 million years when dinosaurs ruled the Earth - the average temperature was at about 5 degrees warmer. In fact, we are currently in a cool period in Earth's history with alternating cycles of ice ages and warmer periods (our current state). Why the ice ages first started is still unclear - one theory is that the rapid rise of the Himalaya's disruputed global climate patterns and changed the climate. That doesn't change the fact that human society is optimised for our current climate state, and any significant changes in climate would have significant effects on human society. Human society would likely adapt, but the time-scale to adapt will be on the order of decades, not centuries. It's been mentioned in this thread that increasing output from the Sun is the cause for warming. Variations in output from the Sun of even a few percent can have a significant impact; however, actually measuring the variations accurately is surprisingly difficult. It's only been possible to get accurate measurements since we've been able to launch satellites which has only been in the last few decades. It's not really possible to establish any type of long-term pattern in solar output in that amount of time. So people who state that increasing solar output is the cause of warming, and basically state it as fact, really have little data to base it on. Another topic that has been mentioned is how climate scientists flip-flop - how 40 years ago we were told we were entering an ice age and now it's the opposite. During the mid-20th century there was a global cooling - I certainly remember some pretty brutal Winnipeg winters in the 70's, and those were by Winnipeg standards. However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that. As I mentioned above, we are in a current warm period between ice ages, and it's highly likely that in a few thousand years the Earth will enter another ice age. But it's not imminent and no climate researcher ever said it was. Someone in this tread said that the people mostly concerned with climate change are left-wing liberals. The many scientists I know run the full range of left-wing liberal to right-wing conservative (including climate scientists), so to catagorise everyone concerned with climate change as left-wing liberal is wrong. Just published in the Washington Post is an article about ExxonMobil executives who believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. I'm going to go on a limb and say that most of those executives are probably right-wing conservatives. And this is a multi-billion dollar company whose business relies on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?utm_source=hootsuite On a positive note, the first helium-plasma fusion device has commenced operation in Germany. This could be a crucial step towards finally achieving the holy grail of nuclear fusion, which has always been 50 years away from being 50 years away. The next step is to do it with hydrogen-plasma. A controlled hydrogen nuclear fusion reactor would essentially solve all of Earth's energy and emission problems.
  3. That's a decent guess, but I wouldn't rule out Ottawa, because Lord knows, Paul LaPolice would look horrible in a plaid lumberjack shirt. Lawless said LaPolice was offered the job in Ottawa (assuming Maas leaves), and another team was also interested (Montreal I think). Lawless also said LaPolice was going to interview in B.C., but then accepted the job with the Bombers.
  4. Apparently BMO is going to operate with 17 yd. endzones, 3 yds shorter than regulation. Didn't BC Place have shorter end zones at some point during its history - something like 15 yards? Maybe when it first opened? I seem to recall that, but I could be completely wrong.
  5. Was Hank on tv talking about himself saying no other qb has been on 3 different Grey Cup qualifying teams?? Who says there's no "I" in team? And not only does Burris come across and conceited and full of himself, but he's also wrong!! Matt Dunigan took Edmonton, B.C., Toronto, and Winnipeg to the game, and Danny McManus took B.C., Edmonton, and Hamilton (also with Winnipeg as a backup).
  6. I don't post very often on here, usually just read the comments. Like many I've noticed the half-dozen or so posters who have taken over almost every thread so they can blast management, coaches, players, etc., using the same attacks ad nauseum, and generally making the forum almost unreadable. But any time someone tries to say something positive about the team they get ganged up on, ridiculed, and shouted down by those same half-dozen posters (basically they act like condescending internet bullies - to steal someone else's words). So it's quite laughable to see one of those half-dozen posters use very aggressive and insulting language, and call someone like Spuds a bully when Spuds has always seemd to post in a calm, rational manner and, as far as I've seen, has been civil to everyone and never acted like a bully. Anyways, I'll leave it at that and flame on if you must.
  7. I think Anaheim is a good team, but I always wondered if they were as good as their record last year. Their goals for/against was only +10, which was the worst of all playoff teams and worse than 1 or 2 non-playoff teams. Didn't they win an NHL record number of 1-goal games? That seems unsustainable, kind of like Calgary's shooting percentage from last year. Maybe it's come back to bite them in the a## this year.
  8. It's actually part of an elaborate and intricate plan concocted by the Bombers. Boyd is really a double agent who will gain the trust of the Al's coaches over the next couple weeks. Then, in their last game when all they have to do is beat the Rider's to get in to the playoff's, Boyd will get the start. He throws the game allowing the Bomber's to get in. After throwing a pick-6 on the last play to allow the Rider's to win, he will take off his Al's jersey to reveal a Bomber jersey, and Miller, Walters and O'Shea will swoop in with a helicopter to airlift him out. It could happen...
  9. True enough, significant outliers can change average values quite a bit. But if you remove Buff then it would only be fair to also remove the lightest player as you could have someone who is far lighter than everyone else. Median is probably a better measure than mean if you have significant outliers. Out of curiosity I looked up the Jets roster to have a quick look. Removing Buff and Ehlers (the lightest player) would move the Jets down a couple spots in average weight, but would still be one of the heaviest teams. And the median of all of the players is almost the same as the mean. In the end it doesn't mean much, just thought it was interesting as the Jets don't seem to be as small a team as some might have thought.
  10. Some interesting stats here on the average weight, height, and age of each NHL team. Some people worry that the Jets are too small, but surprisingly they are second in weight and first in height!! Not surprisingly they are one of the youngest teams, but the oldest is Florida which is interesting as they seemed to be one of these teams with a lot of young talent. http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2015/10/2015-16-nhl-teams-by-height-weight-and.html
  11. I heard the Moose play-by-play person say that all of the Moose games will be broadcast through the Moose website. So if there is a conflict with a Jets game people can listen to it there.
  12. Time will tell whether McDavid will be a superstar; however, he is considered a generational talent and compared with Sidney Crosby. Crosby had 102 points in his rookie season (2005-06) which was 6th overall, so someone of that talent finishing in the top 10 in his rookie season is not unprecedented. Also the Penguins had 58 points that season, so they weren't any better than the Oilers of last season. Of course scoring was up at that time and Joe Thornton won the scoring title with 125 points. Jamie Benn's 87 points was about 70% of Thornton's total, so 70% of Crosby's total is 71 points - right about where many are predicting for McDavid, although a lot less than the 83 points the Hockey News predicts. To sum up, **IF** he is a Crosby-like talent and puts up Crosby-like numbers, then having 70+ points and finishing top 10 in scoring is not unrealistic. Now to actually play the season and see what happens...
  13. I worked at Scandals, Grapes Pier 7, Grapes on Main, Palladium (Stratosphere, The Lid), Boogie Nights, U4IA. Night Moves, Diamond Club, The Zoo (Osborne Village, not Assiniboine Park)....a lot of good times. Think I'll dig out my Queen City Kids, Harlequin, and Streetheart records for old times sake... You must be a bit older than me. I heard of those places before I was old enough to get in. Wasnt Diamond Club where a bouncer was shot and killed? I don't remember a bouncer being shot at the Diamond Club, but I wouldn't doubt it either. I remember The Zoo having a reputation as one of the roughest bars in town, but I never had or saw any problems there.
  14. I worked at Scandals, Grapes Pier 7, Grapes on Main, Palladium (Stratosphere, The Lid), Boogie Nights, U4IA. Night Moves, Diamond Club, The Zoo (Osborne Village, not Assiniboine Park)....a lot of good times. Think I'll dig out my Queen City Kids, Harlequin, and Streetheart records for old times sake...
  15. Who is 61, the left tackle in the 1980 video? Walby? Whoever it is, he's massive compared with everyone else!!
  16. I still remember the breaking news feed scrolling across the bottom of the t.v. screen announcing he had been traded to Hamilton for Tom Clements. It's a shame that his time in Winnipeg ended the way it did, but over the years it seems people came to appreciate what he did on the field and the excitement of seeing him play. Too bad he couldn't have won a cup with the Bombers - damn Eskimo's dynasty! I've always wondered if he could have finally won the cup in '83 or '84 had he stayed in Winnipeg.
  17. They talk about the Grey Cup and his reasons for leaving Winnipeg. He said that he's hoping to be at the Grey Cup game this year.
  18. Dieter Brock interviewed on Hustler and Lawless today. He said that playing in the CFL was more fun than the NFL, and of course discusses his time in Winnipeg. http://www.tsn.ca/radio/winnipeg-1290/brock-playing-canadian-football-more-fun-than-nfl-1.341918
  19. I remember looking forward to the old Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner show every Saturday at 6 PM!!
  20. Here's a link from the twitter feed on the side recapping the old Quebec Nordiques. I always loved their uniforms, and I really like the logo they were apparently going to use if they hadn't moved to Colorado. I'm not sure if I like the rest of the proposed uniform, but the logo is cool. http://www2.tsn.ca/bardown/Story.aspx?A%2bdetailed%2brememberance%2bof%2bthe%2bQuebec%2bNordiques&id=552526
  21. It's not just Canada. I'm living in New Zealand right now and you hear the same kind of stories here. Contracters screwing people over by taking money and not doing the job. There is a show that airs here that is based in the UK called 'Cowboy Builders'. The male co-host (who looks like a pitbull and has the personality of one) helps people who have been cheated by contracters who haven't done the work they've been paid for. He tracks them down and confronts them, while the female co-host helps the people get the work completed.
  22. You spend millions of dollars and water down your market on the chance you might need be seats thirty years down the line? Why would the jets need three thousand extra seats? If demand grew even more they'd raise prices. Instead of IGF, they should have built a 65 000 seat domed stadium in case Winnipeg is granted an NFL team. Plan for the future!!
  23. 1. Randy Savage 2. The Undertaker - dead man version, not the biker. Ted Dibiase's million dollar man was also great. 3. Steve Austin 4. Rick Flair 5. Razor's Edge 6. The Road Warriors, pre-WWF/WWE. Once they came to WWF/WWE they seemed to be booked a lot weaker. 7. Randy Savage crushing Ricky Steamboat's larynx with the ring bell. Like most kids I cheered for the good guys, but that was the moment I realised the heel's were cool. Another great moment was Ted Dibiase kicking the basketball away from the little kid just before he bounced it enough times to win $100 (or was it $300). 8. The Rock was probably the best, but it's hard to argue against Ric Flair, Roddy Piper, or even Chris Jericho. 9. Mick Foley using a forklift to pin The Rock 10. And that's the bottom line son, 'cause Stone Cold said so.
  24. In Dave Hodge's latest Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down column on the TSN website he talks about Tampa Bay missing the playoffs two years ago, losing in the first round last year, and going to the final this year. He lists five teams that missed the playoffs last year and lost in the first round this year: Winnipeg, New York Islanders, Ottawa, Nashville, and Vancouver. Of those five he thinks Winnipeg stands the best chance of repeating what Tampa Bay has done. Probably a bit of a stretch, but interesting that someone who has been around the NHL as long as Dave Hodge thinks that Winnipeg could pull off something like that.
×
×
  • Create New...