bb.king

Here's to Jones continuing this with Demski and an early homecoming for Nic.

Just to clarify, I COULDN'T care less about Henoc...because I don't care at all. Apparently a lot of you still really care about him...

That has to easily be the funniest thing you've ever posted here.
Oh wait...you never said what the glass was half full of.

Now that the royal blue's are back, next they need to bring back trench coats for the head coach. That is a classic look!!

A reporter? Oh my stars this changes everything!!!! Which reporter? Cause most of the reporters in Winnipeg can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. 

A reporter said that? Case closed.

Now that the royal blue's are back, next they need to bring back trench coats for the head coach. That is a classic look!!

Now that the royal blue's are back, next they need to bring back trench coats for the head coach. That is a classic look!!

Now that the royal blue's are back, next they need to bring back trench coats for the head coach. That is a classic look!!

As per twitter (I don't know how to embed twitter posts). Edit: read the instructions and figured it out!
 

As per twitter (I don't know how to embed twitter posts). Edit: read the instructions and figured it out!
 

As per twitter (I don't know how to embed twitter posts). Edit: read the instructions and figured it out!
 

He was, but that probably had more to do with the NHL's hatred of the WHA. The AHL is a professional league, so by the same argument a player shouldn't be considered a rookie if they played there. There is an age restriction where the player has to be 26 or younger at the start of the season. That came as a result of Sergei Makarov, if anyone remembers him. He was part of the old Soviet Union's famous KLM line in the 1980's and played internationally against the best players in the world for years. Calgary was able to get him in 1990 when he was 31, and since he hadn't played in the NHL he was considered a rookie despite everything he did in the 1980's. He won the Calder and everyone thought it was ridiculous that he was considered a rookie, and after that the NHL instituted the age restriction.

He was, but that probably had more to do with the NHL's hatred of the WHA. The AHL is a professional league, so by the same argument a player shouldn't be considered a rookie if they played there. There is an age restriction where the player has to be 26 or younger at the start of the season. That came as a result of Sergei Makarov, if anyone remembers him. He was part of the old Soviet Union's famous KLM line in the 1980's and played internationally against the best players in the world for years. Calgary was able to get him in 1990 when he was 31, and since he hadn't played in the NHL he was considered a rookie despite everything he did in the 1980's. He won the Calder and everyone thought it was ridiculous that he was considered a rookie, and after that the NHL instituted the age restriction.

I remembered the situation with Makarov, but a big assist to Wikipedia for the details!

He was, but that probably had more to do with the NHL's hatred of the WHA. The AHL is a professional league, so by the same argument a player shouldn't be considered a rookie if they played there. There is an age restriction where the player has to be 26 or younger at the start of the season. That came as a result of Sergei Makarov, if anyone remembers him. He was part of the old Soviet Union's famous KLM line in the 1980's and played internationally against the best players in the world for years. Calgary was able to get him in 1990 when he was 31, and since he hadn't played in the NHL he was considered a rookie despite everything he did in the 1980's. He won the Calder and everyone thought it was ridiculous that he was considered a rookie, and after that the NHL instituted the age restriction.

Go to the 1:00 minute mark.  Talk about talent.  Hawerchuk had the softest hands I've ever seen.

How is anyone outperforming anyone right now. There are no available free agents right now, it is just GM's extending their own players before they hit free agency. This seems like you fabricating something to complain about since there is nothing really to complain about right now. Sorry to say but SWING AND A MISS.

EW has an article up with some cool tidbits I didn't catch upon first viewing
Rey's vision contains dialogue from Yoda and Kenobi. They had frank Oz record new dialogue but used old dialogue 
for Kenobi they used both Alec Guiness and Ewen Macgregor. Very cool. I didn't catch it but Kenobi says "Rey....these are your first steps". 
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/12/20/jj-abrams-reveals-obi-wan-and-yoda-are-star-wars-force-awakens

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.