bb.king

what stands out to me from our 3 GC wins were the defensive plays.  Stan Mikawos rumbling down the field for the TD after Ty Jones big hit on Dieter Brock caused a fumble  in 1984, Michael Gray with the interception on Matt Dunigan on the 2 yrd line in 88 to turn the tide and seal the victory, and Greg Battle returning the pick six on Tracy Ham in 90.   Good times.

Had to put this gem up:
 
 

Not a trailer but still fun to watch... can't wait for the 2nd movie
 

Not as successful as Tim Burke or Jeff Reinebold - take away their losses and they have a 100% winning percentage!

“If you’re in denial of global warming, you’re in denial of objective scientific truths, That’s not a political stance, that’s an ignorant stance.”
-Neil deGrasse Tyson

My crew just did the first livefire of a new giant-ass rocket engine. 550K lbs of thrust, designed to change the heavy launch game.
Still a long long way to go before  we can bolt this baby onto a vehicle, but this was the cumulation of years of work and so we are pumped.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/blue-origin-has-successfully-tested-its-powerful-be-4-rocket-engine/

This was always my personal favourite. I remember seeing them a couple times at the old SunFest in Gimli.

This was always my personal favourite. I remember seeing them a couple times at the old SunFest in Gimli.

Spinning a ton of Hip on our station all day today.....tons of fave Hip songs for me, but over the last year or so, this has become a regular in my rotation...
 

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.

Well Elimimian isn't Canadian, so that doesn't help anything.  Now people would just be bitching about how Derek Jones keeps getting beat on the corner.
Singleton isn't on our team.  He's obviously better than Hurl, but so what?    As in, why aren't people spending countless hours complaining about Feoli-Gudino not being as good as Sinopoli?  That would be an identical situation, but it never happens.  What kind of impact would Sinopoli have on our team?  The same.  We'd be better.  If we replaced all our non-all-star players with the CFL all-star team, we'd be better.
I completely agree that we don't have all the best players in the league on our team.

lol, dude you're crazy.

Can you clarify this statement please? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Racism exists, it's not a " ridiculous liberal outrage du jour." 
You should really clarify your statements, otherwise it looks like you are saying that racism is a liberal fabrication and doesn't really exist. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not saying that, but you should just clarify.

FIRST YEAR PLAYERS NOT PLAYING IS A SIGN OF A TEAM THAT FINALLY HAS DEPTH AND ISN'T THROWING THEIR DRAFT PICKS TO THE WOLVES!!!

Interesting article... 
We may have to start a new thread again.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html
 
 

Wrestling isn't popular enough for a start up to risk blowing money...  MMA isn't even worth spending a tonne of money on starting a promotion  as it's popularity is declining. 
What they need to do is mix a bit of scripted wrestling with a bit of real MMA fighting and add a dash of prizes to be won and we can get the next best thing........
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
 

Well, that settles it. I want to thank bbking for that he info, and for all the great music and for showing me all I have to do is send stuff to Rich...and he'll figure out what to do with it. ?

*Mettle
/Thread

that is awesome -- thank you very much!

I thought that too, but then found that option near the bottom, above the Twitter feed. It would be nice if it was at the top.

I don't think you're going to convince anyone that your crazy thoughts are correct when in fact there has been clear improvement over the course of Mike O'Sheas tenure here. yes it started out bad and was still bad a year later, but then last year they got to 11-7 and lost a close one in the playoffs, this year they also started off the season with a winning record yet here you are acting like they're a terrible terrible football team, and why? Because they lost a close game to BC? Because they lost to Calgary? I mean come on, you really need to pull your head out of your ass because it's so far up there you can't even see what's right in front of you. 
 

What a load of crap.

Fun Fact of the day, since taking over one year ago, Winnipeg is 13-5 with Nichols as the starting QB.