17to85

It was a piss poor market for trading players this deadline so I have a hard time being too judgemental for doing nothing.

The thing about HFboards is that it's full of *******.

Nah I think the problem in 2010 was simply that Jyles would play well enough to lose nothing more nothing less.

The Bombers already have several people in their employ who are paid specifically to know how to identify the best prospects. If they can't make a good decision without the presence of a positional coach there then why are we paying those people in the first place?

I guess you'll need to talk to Dr Sigmund as you're part of the fanbase like we all are. Id? Well I did say IN Winnipeg so I got my bases covered.

is playing in front of the bipolar fans in Winnipeg really a bonus? Seems to me that if they start out poorly the mob will turn on them pretty quick.

US big oil has enough investments in the oil sands they want the stuff to be produced. It really is because you can't show CO2 emissions, there's nothing to see, but you get some pictures of a clear cut forest or a big tailings pond and show that to people and they react because it's a shocking thing to see. The other thing they like to do is pretend that the tailings ponds are as bad as the ones at other kinds of mines. Cleaning up the tailings from a gold mine, very problematic, but tailings from the oil sands mining? They have a very high success rate at reclaiming that and restoring the land when they are done mining. Oil sands make a great target for people who want to point the finger at someone else but most of it is distorted facts and propaganda nothing more.

The thing that bugs me the most about the oil sands protestors is that they paint a picture like the entire area is strip mined. It's ridiculous. Most of the new development isn't even mines anymore, it's all in situ SAGD which is basically no different for land disturbance than conventional oil wells.

Hey go on and have your opinions, but this is a topic I am quite interested in and without any bragging I think I can say I am more educated in it than the general public so I'm going to point out when others opinions don't match what I know.

But it's still a lot of money and most of the options are simply not as reliable in many places anyway. Fossil fuels are so cheap and so efficient and so transportable. The only real alternative would be nuclear and that just has a different kind of pollution to deal with. It is a massive expenditure no matter how you want to look at it because the majority of the infrastructure is set up for fossil fuels, even switching from coal to natural gas is costly. Truthfully the best solution is probably to try and make every building as independent of the main grid as possible, but good luck getting everyone to pay the do that.

That's because you don't have to pay for it. How much do you suppose it costs to switch from fossil fuels as an energy source? How many nuclear plants will it take to replace the coal oil or gas burning ones? Hell even switching from coal to gas is pricey enough.

15 years of anecdotal evidence in one geographic location is weather not climate. Trust me on this one, climate is not something you can comment on without a lot of data on a global scale.

I stayed long enough to get banned for telling Colin why people left. Banned me then not long after that he made a post basically saying the same things I told him. Sad really that he was so touchy he couldn't take constructive criticism.

You are talking about weather not climate. Climate is a long term pattern not what happens year to year. Calgary is especially problematic because of the chinooks, they make winters unpredictable as well.

I believe the point that people were trying to make is that it's a slippery slope and how long before they have to add more challenges because the refs are missing so many calls?

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. There is absolutely no argument based in science against the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect the temperature on Earth would resemble Mars. Hell compare Venus as well to see what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like. It's hard and fast science that greenhouse gasses do warm a planet up. Denying it is pointless and shows a great lack of understanding of the concept. Now be my guest and argue about the effects of these CO2 emissions, I'll be right there beside you doing the same, but gotta make sure that the science is given it's proper due.

Don't get me started on that. Canada contributes 2% of global CO2 emissions. If we stopped every single source of emissions tomorrow global levels will STILL rise because China keeps firing up more and more coal power plants which are the worst. The Oil Sands are a good way for those Europeans and Americans to deflect the blame and cluck their tongues about that dirty dirty oil. And how DARE us Canadians have a high per capita CO2 emission rate. Shame on us for living in a cold northern climate with long winters and a huge area to transport people and goods across. Shame on us for needing to avoid freezing in the winter.

"worse" is too subjective a term. I am not even sure they are accurate when they claim that temperature is rising faster than it ever has, pretty sure there's evidence in the past of faster climate changes (usually when coming out of ice ages) but here is the biggest thing, when we're talking about the Earth and the time scale we use to measure events in the past centuries are irrelevant. + or - hundreds of thousands of years is well within the margin of error. So taking recordings from a century and a half and making grandiose claims strikes me as a bit egotistical. Most people can't even comprehend geologic time scales. If the temperature starts dropping in 50 years time then in the big picture this warming here never happened at all because the mean is still right there. Something else to consider is given that tens of thousands of years isn't really that long we are still pretty close to the last ice age. Hell in Victorian times they called it a little ice age. There is a lot to argue about in terms of climate still. With it being a relatively new discipline of science there are bound to be many discoveries that will change the way we think, and that has happened, the problem is that too many people latch onto the worst case scenario that they came up with 10 years ago and still cling to all of that.

See this is the only point we really disagree on and you are wrong to try and deny that it is a thing. Yeah reports on the severity change, but I agree with you that it's not as dire as people want to make it, but there is a relationship. I have a geology major and a geography minor, if there's anything I know it's how the Earth works and I am well aware of different climates in the past and different atmospheric conditions, but the science is settled, more green house gasses in the atmosphere means more heat trapped which means the climate changes. They can and will quibble about the extent of it and what kinds of things is causes but the facts are that there is a change as a result. So you really just need to clarify what you're arguing. Don't argue that man made climate change is not real because that is a losing argument. Argue the things that you do, just leave out the whole bit about denying it's a thing.

The simple fact is that if people really wanted to stop all the emissions they never talk about the surefire way to do it... dealing with the over population that's going on right now. You want to have a big impact? Trim a couple billion people off the population and suddenly there's a lot less demand for energy globally and a lot of environmental problems are lessened. Good luck getting anyone to listen to that though. Instead they'll just scream about spending trillions of dollars trying to make the problem go away instead, which is a laughable solution at best. Money won't fix this problem, changing our energy sources is the only solution and it just so happens that fossil fuels are just about the most efficient energy source we have and we do like our energy.

Well it's about as proven as it's going to get. The relationship between greenhouse gases and their heat trapping effect is real, the fact that since the industrial revolution there has been a metric crap load of greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere is a fact, it's still science and yeah it's a hypothesis, but it's as sound a hypothesis as gravity or evolution at this point. (or do you want to argue about how those are just unproven hypotheses now too?) I am far from a doom and gloomer, but the science is pretty straight forward in this matter, the questions are about what the effect will be and there is a lot of debate there because there are so many variables it is nearly impossible to accurately predict. The debate is all about whether it's worth spending the amount it would cost to do something that it's probably already too late to do anything about or not.

Kids today don't know nothing about anything.

The fact is that the CFL allows holding to happen because they don't want qbs getting killed.

Holding for sure, why not review whether a receiver was offside in his waggle too? Where does it end? Are we going to give coaches 20 challenge flags per game because there are a lot of calls get missed or are questionable in the course of a game. Hell why even have referees on the field? After every play let someone in Toronto watch a replay and call a penalty if there is one and review everything. Just say no to reviews. Go back to letting the onfield officials do it all and if they're wrong they're wrong. It will balance itself out over the course of a season.

The hockey stick is wrong, there's a bump in the middle of it, but that in and of itself doesn't say much about the science behind global warming, just that one guy is wrong about one aspect of things. At this point it's not about whether global warming (climate change is a better term anyway) is real or not, it's about what if anything to do about it, and that is a very good debate that is worth having because there are so many things to say. All the projections about what might happen, lots of speculation and doom and glooming there.