Wanna-B-Fanboy

I think we go: 12 pop-tarts - 2 stormy clouds - and 4 Buzz Aldrins With a Grey Cup victory this year. (one of these years I will be right)

Not the same situation: Wily is South of 30 with many years ahead of him as franchise QB. Burris is north of Methuselah's age, probably in his final year for Harris to Transition into Franchise QB. So no, "Desjardin schooling Walters again" is a silly thing to say.

Forget Hilary- they NEED Bernie.

Good Gravy! I am loving this Republican race! I would LOVE a Trump/Palin ticket! http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/palin-trump-campaign-boag-1.3413174

Maybe Standing outside said free agent's home with megaphone in hand... Stripper-gram? Novelty fortune cookie? I dunno, just floating some ideas here. Edit: I like quoting your posts- give a whole new (and natural) dynamic to our forum names.

If our team starts taking on the persona of it's head coach and starts playing the Way MOS did, people will be coming out in droves.

Actually, I would recommend the "Machete Mash-up". Watch in this order: IV: A New Hope V: Empire Strikes Back II: Attack of the clones III: Revenge of the Sith VI: Return of The Jedi Skip I: The Phantom Menace all together. It helps preserve the surprise factor in many instances and sets up nicely Luke's struggle. Huge bonus... Jar Jar Binks gets less than a dozen lines. Interesting tidbit to make II much less painful to watch: There is a rumour that Obi Wan and Padme might have had some fling early on, or something but are downplaying it. Edit: But really, you don't even need to bother with I, II or II. Its more there for back story more than anything really. As long as you watch IV, V and VI- that's integral.

Sorry TUP, I am not attacking you personally- just your grasp on science. You are a good egg, I have admired many of your posts on Football, movies and so on- but not your take on science. Don't take it personally- I don't believe I have attack anyone personally on these boards- If I have, I am sorry.

Well, the above sounds like something you would spout off sans-sarcasm- you can't fault me. You are not wrong with these statements... however, in the context you are implying- you are just plain wrong.

Look, you can be a giant jerk here, that's fine. You are just like every single other warm-monger I know, who just twists words and then calls you names if you dare disagree with the bogus "consensus". What I said was that there have been zero predictions about man-made climate change that have come true. Zero. So why is that if the "science" is so solid? That's all I said. I didn't mention evolution or gravity, so why even bring them up? The thing is, you don't give any stock to science- it is difficult to have a rational and realistic discussion when you don't even acknowledge science. Listening to you is akin to having a discussion about Evolution that doesn't give any legitimacy to scientific evidence... if someone who does not believe in science begins to shout and yell about Adam and Eve, they are quickly cut out of the discussion or given very little credibility if any. You have no credibility when discussing the science or evidence of AGW. This is not to say you don't have valid concerns, don't get me wrong, you have very legitimate concerns you just refuse to take into consideration the evidence and science in your concerns.

Except that Miami was supposed to be under water several years ago, and it still hasn't happened. If the science is "solid", why has every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong? There is sooo much wrong in these two post- all you get is a snide remark, sorry. I am starting to expect a few gems from you two: -the earth is only 6000 yrs old- dinosaur bones? those were put here as God's test or the devil to trick us -Gravity has not been proven, it's only a theory. -Evolution? Just a theory, unless you include mud or clay as a point of origin. -Earth is round? Come on! -Earth goes around the sun? MADNESS! Just saying, "every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?" gives us a clear indication where you two are coming from- there really is no room at the grown up table for you two, you guys get relegated to the kiddie table.

There is so much awesome in this post.

The sun will explode, regardless of human intervention. We all accept this is true don't we? Seriously, what's your ******* point?

Isn't he an ex-con? and not in the "oh, my political leanings have shifted left" ex-con... but in a "was convicted of fraud" ex-con?

A Grey Cup. anything else is window dressing.

It was as much a secret as Christoph Walsh being Blofeld in spectre. They tried to deny it but everyone knew the story before the movie came out. Guess I don't need to go watch Spectre now.

So only scientists should have an opinion? There is contradictory "science". Seems even scientists dont know. the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate. So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. I ♥ you. Aaaaand cue KBF's triple "D" "Deny, Deflect, Denigrate" I'm the one who "denigrates"? Who is the one posting nonsense about "Front Groups" and only looking at one side of the whole debate? Who is the one denigrating "Friends of Science" but turning a complete blind eye to the Tides Foundation? Who funds the Green Party in Canada? The Sierra Club? Hint - it's not Canadians. Nice, you mixed this one up a bit: Colour coded for ease of understanding: Deny Deflect Denigrate

So only scientists should have an opinion? There is contradictory "science". Seems even scientists dont know. the problem is, there is also a lot of bullshit parading around as science that people keep bringing up. Here are some things that we can accept as true though... The Eath has warmed and cooled on it's own for a variety of reasons in the past and will continue to do so in the future The greenhouse effect is real, this is not up for debate CO2 is a greehouse gas, this is not up for debate Our species has emitted a metric **** ton of CO2 in the last 200 years, this is a fact and not up for debate. So you put all those things together and yeah there is a whole lot of overwhelming evidence pointing towards our actions as a species impacting climate.How much? Well that's where the debate comes in, and what's to be done about it? That's the biggest debate that should be happening. The science is pretty straightforward and trying to hand wave it away with arguments like "Well the Earth warms and cools naturally" aren't scientific they're little better than being a flat earther or creationist. Just flies in the face of real science. I ♥ you. Aaaaand cue KBF's triple "D" "Deny, Deflect, Denigrate"

Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this? The World's Pals @: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 This is a far more informative link to the "Friends of Science" activities, compiled by the "Center for Media and Democracy". http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science I'd believe this so-called "Center for Media and Democracy" if they exposed Front groups, as they call them, on both sides of the debate. This just looks like a hack job on any organization that dares challenge the warm-monger apocalyptic view. A friend of mine has a double doctorate in mathematics and is a member of "Friends of Science", and believe me, he is getting nothing from "Big Oil". He just wants to inject some truth into the discussion, which a lot of people don't want to hear, mostly because they've been so brain-washed that they don't want to have to think about this anymore. He also got a kick out of those six guys that want to put the Friends of Science in jail, as he says it is nothing new, warmists are always trying to shut them up as they fear the giant gravy train of government cash is going to come to an end, and they'll have to find a new environmental issue to blow way out of proportion. It is fun to watch my friend destroy elitist liberals at parties though, who are still parroting fear-mongering lines from Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie movie from 2007. It's 2015 and not one of Al's scary predictions from that Oscar winning "documentary" have come true. Of course they didn't come true, because they were total BS. First off here is some of the funding source complete with supported facts: FundingThe Globe and Mail reported that FoS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.” [3] The following from SourceWatch: [7] In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science “had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change” and had returned unspent grant money on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement (PDF). As a consequence, the University advised FoS “that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf”, according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007 (PDF) On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that UofC officials had shut down Cooper's “'Research on Climate Change' trust account”, and were about to advise Elections Canada of the University's ongoing review of the matter. [8] SourceWatch also provides a grant history of the Calgary Foundation (PDF). Now, of course your friend doesn't get a cheque cut and signed directly from big oil, he may even be an unpaid volunteer- but a lot of the funding comes from alberta oil and the FoS were initially set up to muddy the discussion on AGW. Also, just because your buddy has a double Doctorate in Math (Good for him, very good accomplishment) does not make him any more knowledgeable or honest about climate change.

Interesting argument. I'd like to read more. What's the source on this? The World's Pals @: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Please tell me you are kidding, please tell me you have some grasp of science. Please do not erode my faith in our educational system...

See I agree with what you wrote above, but in the total opposite way. I think that it is a cussing travesty that a website like Skeptical Science can completely manufacture the lie that there is a "general consensus" and that gullible people will just believe this and parrot it, because it is in tune with their confirmation bias. I think that what has just as catastrophic consequences for mankind is the supposed "cures" to this supposed "problem", and using "big oil" as an excuse is just a pure straw man. I think the people that have caused taxpayers in almost every country in the Western world to waste billions on useless wind and solar "green" energy solutions should be considered criminals. Look at Ontario. $37 billion wasted in the last 8 years, and yet here you are, saying that people who call this waste into question are the criminals. Think a bit here. Stop believing the lies and being a sheeple yourself. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html You know that Dr. Richard Tol said "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct” and that “The consensus is of course in the high nineties.” You know, the guy who's paper, the site you linked to is using right? This paper here: http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~rt220/cookerlrev.pdf page 7. the issue Tol had was how Cook came up with the numbers... in which he then did a retake on the math and basically cherry-picked his data- Cherry picking is the tactic of focussing on specific pieces of data, often out of context, while excluding any data that conflicts with the desired conclusion. Anyways, Bart Verheggen puts it best, “You can’t just divide the number of affirmative statements by all papers in the sample, if many papers didn’t actually stake out any position on the question at hand. The latter should logically be excluded, unless you want to argue that of all biology papers, only 0.5% take an affirmative position on evolution, hence there is low consensus on evolution.”

I can't believe I am even making this Thread... But, it seems to have taken over the politics Thread so I figured we can hash this out here (though the way the conversation was heading about AGW, maybe it should have stayed in the Politics thread... So here we go, let's have at it! I believe there is overwhelming evidence in AGW and it is a vocal, self-serving minority of the scientific community that derail and muddy up the issue so we can not act in a constructive manner to curtail this global thread.

That's the tricky part of this conversation, you either believe in empirical evidence backed logic (science)or you don't. It does not depend on which science, you can't pick and choose what facts you want to believe in, you have to take it as a whole. Cherry picking facts to support your already determined conclusion is not science. Besides, I am very supportive of this initiative about holding liars accountable. I think it is a cussing travesty that an extreme minority of the scientific communty can lie to muddy up general concensus and holding everyone back from actually fixing the problem... which has catastrophic consequences for a **** tonne of the population and ecosystem, all for a little (in) famous notoriety and cash from big oil. Those people should be considered criminals. Those that purposely lie when they know better, not the sheeple who believe them.