bigg jay

I just realized that Spuds and TBurg are the exact polar opposite posters on this site.......I think the goal of every poster should be to sit somewhere right in the middle of those two, rationale-wise....

What she did was nuts to begin with... doing it with a 3 year old in the car while she did takes it to a whole other level.

Bowman still puts a pile of balls on the ground, he just gets thrown to a million times a game so he pads his stats. 

I agree and that's why I hope he ends up there!  I also hope he gets that huge salary that his agent thinks he's worth.  

I agree and that's why I hope he ends up there!  I also hope he gets that huge salary that his agent thinks he's worth.  

John Bowman has been pretty vocal about this so it'll be interesting to see how they play for him this year.  Bowman pretty much called Thorpe over-rated, saying that he inherited an already good defense.

He does but being a ****** bag is more important than the truth to him. He did the same kind of thing the other day when we signed that linebacker.

I legitimately don't know what to think of him... He was great as Drogo but beyond horrible in Conan... I'm hoping that the Conan movie was just a giant bag of **** all around and no one could have saved it and he's actually a decent actor. His Khal Drogo was one of the highlights of that season. 

Dear Santa,
 
I would like 1 Saskatchewan RoughRiders season completely in the tank in 2016.....
 
Sincerely,
 
Noeller

And there's nothing wrong with that..

A team throws a ton of money and power at people who want more money and power and then hires them. Simple , right ? Wrong. In Priderland its a "miracle" a "coup" a masterstroke of football ops. genius. Look out world here we come.

Welcome to the Chris Jones era Rider fans!
 
TYRON BRACKENRIDGE        ✔ @TBrack41 The least they could've done was give me a phone call letting me know what's up.

TYRON BRACKENRIDGE –
Jovon Johnson called and left you a message..

I would say SJ Green falls into the star receiver category.

I want to go back to wearing rapiers on our belts. En garde, *******.

Ottawa really needs to be careful with what they're doing here. Unless they plan to run their organization by only hiring coaches without contracts from here on out. They're really putting themselves out there to be shunned by the other franchises going forward.

Well, I'm not stupid....

Since it's the holiday season, I'm willing to help look after things while he makes that transition! 

Oh, I don't know. There's that least popular thing...

Since it's the holiday season, I'm willing to help look after things while he makes that transition! 

Well that does it for me. I would expect that Leo is going to give up his private jets and his wild supermodel parties and live like a monk now, given what he saw happening in Calgary. I mean, warm winds are coming in and melting snow in the middle of winter. The world is definitely ending.

I don't understand what's happening in this thread.

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.

Nolby, did you go to school with iso by any chance?

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.