kelownabomberfan

Except when they are predicting ice ages!

Thanks for the post, and taking the time. A few misconceptions though. I don't think that anyone is saying that any one factor is responsible for whatever climate change might or might not be occurring. So no one is saying "it's just the sun". They are saying "Hey, what about the sun, why are you guys just ignoring that glowing ball"? Secondly, the comment "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" is inaccurate. There were plenty of climate "scientists" who jumped on board the 1970's global cooling scare/fear-mongering schtick. Some of whom are now part of the current global warming fear-mongering team. Steven Schneider was one of the more famous ones who "flip flopped" from stating that we were all doomed to freeze to death in the 1970's, and now was saying (before he died) that we were all going to burn to death. He even appeared on a Leonard Nimoy TV show talking about the global cooling theory. Here's a link to a paper that Schneider wrote in 1971, along with another climate scientist, in support of the global cooling fear theory: http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm He figured out if injected enough fear into the discussion, you could basically say anything, and people would believe it, be it cooling or warming. Here's the opening of the Nimoy "science" show on the coming ice age that was broadcast in 1978: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA Packed with fear. "Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way". I do like how Nimoy talks about "sea coasts long free of summer ice are now frozen year round". Those coasts froze because of the global cooling that "climatologists" told us was happening, and now those same coasts are now becoming ice free again. But now "climatologists", David Suzuki and Al Gore all say that they must be ice free because of man-made warming. So the coasts were once ice free in summer (according to Leonard Nimoy in 1978 anyway), long before the man-made climate change theory existed or CO2 levels were at the levels they are now, then they iced up in the 1970's, and it was because of global cooling caused by man, and now they are melting again, and it must be because of global warming caused by man. How can anyone be anything but skeptical given this track record? Sea coasts in the north ice up. Then they melt. Then they ice up again. It's what they do. How about this? Mankind has only been documenting various weather trends accurately for what, about 80 years? In our total existence? And we've only been able to even remotely monitor via satellite, to any degree of accuracy, the ice levels of the north and south poles for what, 30 - 35 years? Before that, who knows what was going on up in the North Pole. There are stories from the 1920's of coasts being ice free back then, that are now still frozen. But that's all we have, anecdotal evidence, up until the mid 1980's. Maybe, just maybe, there are cycles to earth's climate, that we don't even understand or get just yet. Like, why were the "dirty thirties" so dirty? Now, if there is a drought, it must be "man made climate change" that is causing it. But what caused the drought in the 30's? It wasn't man-made climate change. Perhaps, just perhaps, climates change naturally. But there's no $4 billion funding grants, and no fancy Paris parties to attend, if that's the case. So fear-mongering it is.

Just surprises me that he'd go from the Colts where the Jets clearly have a good relationship with management, to another team. Same thing happened to Morrisey his final year I believe. Yup - from PA to Kelowna.

Dude, if we could terraform Venus then Terran climate change would be ... simple. Venus is a nasty place. It'd be easier to terraform the Marianas Trench. No kidding, Venus is the poster child planet for the greenhouse effect gone insane. It rains acid there for gods sake and is too hot for people to live there. and the atmospheric pressure is so high that walking on Venus would be like walking at the bottom of Marianas trench. Actually not quite true - the pressure on Venus is equivalent to being only 1 km under the ocean, or 90 atmospheres. At the bottom of the Marianas trench the pressure is 1000 atmospheres. Slightly higher. Anyway, I've seen a lot of alarmists use Venus as an "example" of runaway climate change, but their atmospheric pressure also plays a role in why Venus is unsuitable for mankind to terra-form.

You've said this several times, KBF -- that climate change alarmism is lucrative and will continue so long as people can get paid to study it. And I don't think this is unreasonable. People will do things to get paid, and people get invested in the things they get paid for. However, this argument has never been convincing to me because action on climate change will cause significant disruption to moneyed interests. If you say that climate change science is fueled by greed and avarice, surely you must also acknowledge that opposition to climate change action is motivated by greed and avarice as well, and not by ivory-pure devotion to the preponderance of scientific evidence. If I haven't stated it before, I will say it now. You are right, both sides are fueled by this, as is all mankind. It's our nature. What I object to is muck-raking by these stupid websites against organizations like Friends of Science, without any attention being paid to the other side. The Tides Foundation funds all kinds of disinformation, and the high cancer lie completely fabricated about Fort Chipewyan was a prime example of that. Yet when Tides was exposed when one of their numbered companies was found to be paying people from Fort Chip to fly around and give anti-oil sands speeches, when their cancer rates weren't higher than anywhere else, none of that seemed to interest all of these websites that have these Orwellian names like "Center for Democracy and Truth" or whatever. I firmly believe that these websites themselves are just front groups for big Green in the USA. Why else would they attack any and all skeptic scientists so viciously? I don't get these websites, but they sure have the potential to do harm. A website called "Canadaland" went after broadcaster Amanda Lang because she had the audacity to speak at an RBC event, calling it a conflict of interest because she was dating a director for the RBC. If you've ever watched Amanda Lang you'd know she's about as left wing as it gets. Her relationship with the RBC guy was so new, neither had even told their kids about it, and yet these guys just embarrassed her and called her out for no reason, and now she's had to leave the CBC. These sites do a lot of damage, and I don't get why they do it, but it seems cruel and mean.

Unless Mars is wayyyy more interesting than we think it is, there's no fossil fuels there. Mars colonies will need to be powered by nuclear or renewables, so we need to get on that in any case. Investing in Mars is a sound idea. Even if we don't bake ourselves out of a planet, humanity will eventually be extinguished on Earth. Supervolcanoes, gamma-ray bursters, asteroids, ice ages ... in the long view, we escape Earth or we die. Yup, I agree. Time to start terra-forming Mars right now.

Paul Friesen ✔ @friesensunmedia Welcome to the CFL and the #Bombers, Kyle Knox. No drug testing here.

Credit to Mark Steyn on that one! Speaking of Steyn, he was testifying the other day in Congress. Here's his testimony, and what he's been through since a SLAPP lawsuit was launched against him by Michael Mann, the father of the AGW "hockey stick", so loved by Al Gore and other warm-mongers. Well worth the read. What he's been through sounds a lot like the McCarthy era in the 1950's. Don't criticize the AGW fraud, or you will be persecuted! http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c6a57a91-8bbd-45f3-9eaa-51cc8f64e9dc/5DDB5BDF028B536F0A1A4E116D144E9D.mr.-mark-steyn-testimony.pdf This is just awesome:

Oh don't get me wrong, I am far from a doom and gloomer, I'm of the opinion that it's a lot of fretting over things we shouldn't worry about. We're better off doing what humans do best and adapting to the change rather than trying to halt said change. Fossil fuels will naturally be replaced at some point anyway, I'd rather let economics dictate when to make the change as opposed to forcing it at huge cost. I also don't agree with schemes like cap and trade and carbon taxes, I don't believe they actually address the issue. That being said, the science is pretty sound and the opposing science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works, it's not about opinions it's about proving and disproving. You sound a lot like two guys I really admire, Bjorn Lomborg and Matthew Ridley. Both are self-described "luke-warmers", in that they agree with the hypothesis to some extent that man-generated CO2 may be having an effect on climate, but they say the costs and the actual cures themselves are far worse than actual man-made climate change. Matt Ridley actually describes a lot of the suggested "cures" for man-made climate change as wrapping a tourniquet around your neck to stop a nosebleed. I think a lot of people would agree with this, but are shouted down, Lomborg has a serious problem with wasting billions on solving "man-made climate change" in Africa while for a few million, all Africans could receive mosquito nets, and therefore not die of malaria long before they ever die of climate change. Lomborg has been attacked mercilessly by the AGW warm-mongers, and I'm sure the resident muck-rakers could in five minutes find several sites pointing out how Lomborg's aunt once spoke at a conference and the Koch brothers took a dump in the hotel during the conference so therefore his opinion is worthless, but that's beside the point. IF this is an issue, how big an issue is it? Is it the apocalyptic ****-storm that those being paid a lot of money to "study" this problem say it is? I agree with you, the answer is probably "no".

Solid burn.

Not really a solid burn. Just more deflection.. But what else is new.

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. and yet there have been periods of time where CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, and yet somehow the world didn't experience the doomsday scenarios as forecasted by groups who directly benefit from people believing these doomsday scenarios, as their livelihoods and funding are tied to people continuing to buy the doomsday scenarios. And that, as they say, is a conflict of interest.

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.

Sorry, but this is unadulterated BS. And what about all of the funds that AGW lobby groups get from US sources with vested interest in "Green Renewables"? Is that not also about "muddying the waters" and causing all kinds of angst about AGW purely for profit? What is hilarious is that some of the biggest investors in "Green" technology are oil companies. I'm sorry but I'm not buying the complete BS that all of these "front groups" as they are called are lobbying on behalf of "Big Oil". Big Oil doesn't need to lobby anybody, or muddy any waters whatsoever. From what I've seen, the biggest liars and therefore biggest beneficiaries of the entire AGW hoax are organizations like Greenpeace and "Friends of the Earth". Since the AGW scam went mainstream in 2007, they've taken in literally billions of dollars and grown their organizations exponentially. Also - NASA now receives $4 billion a year to "study" this scam. Of course they are going to promote this unproven hypothesis and scare everyone, their funding depends on it! Why, if these sources you keep quoting are so devoted to the truth, are they not reporting on these "front groups" on the supposed "Green" side? No bigger fraud that I've seen in this whole mess was the completely concocted story about how cancer rates were so high in oil sands communities. It was all a load of cock and bull. But as it was revealed (by Ezra of course as no one else would do it) US environmentalists were funding the entire sham. And yet, no one cared. That's why I can't trust this crap that you are posting. There is big money at stake on both sides, but you don't want to see both sides.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-attacks-france-shuts-down-three-mosques-in-security-crackdown-a6757596.html Trump is completely nuts, and his policies, if you can call them that, are crazy, but I do agree that there should be more co-operation with the Muslim community, and that something has to be done to try and work with them to stop these attacks. Look what is going on in France right now. They are finding military grade weaponry in mosques. Why weren't they searching these places sooner? And why are mosques in France being used as store-houses for weapons? Why were no Muslims reporting these weapons to authorities?

o.k...who is the best choice and why? Someone who hasn't failed here twice already for obvious reasons. Lapo has been stuck on TSN for the last few years, that says something to me about how in demand the guy is. Yeah he's the most experienced candidate out there... but that isn't exactly much to hang your hat on. I don't know if I call his head coaching stint a "failure", as he did get us to the Grey Cup in 2011. In 2012 he was Mack's fall guy. I don't think that Lapo should have been fired in 2012. That was a terrible move, and set us up with Droopy Dog for a year and half of misery.

Impossible to say. It's more likely they had vision of weapons today and if they did would never want the citizenry to possesses them. The interpretation of the amendment that it was for the citizenry to act as a militia in the absence of a strong central army is fair. At the time the Americans expected that the British would re-organize and try to take back the 13 colonies at some point, and so they wanted to make sure every American had a gun and could be mobilized should the British sweep over the border from Canada and start another armed conflict. Turns out that they were right, as in 1812 war broke out again. And the British walked into Washington and burned down the president's mansion, but not before eating the dinner that President Madison had left behind when he and his staff fled the city. The British tried to burn down Washington, but it was saved by a hurricane that put out all of the fires. Weird eh?

Yeah, and I get reminded of how good he was in 2010 every time I see that insurance ad and they show that run he did for a TD against Hamilton in his first ever game in Blue. He was at the top of his game in 2010 all right, especially considering his receivers that year were Terence Edwards and Jaymael Smith. Don't forget Adarius Bowman, Terrence Jeffers Harris, and Brock Ralph How much did Bowman even play in 2010? He couldn't catch a cold when he played for the Bombers. But yeah, he had Brock Ralph to throw to, I forgot about that. Also, Aaron Hargreaves.

Yeah, and I get reminded of how good he was in 2010 every time I see that insurance ad and they show that run he did for a TD against Hamilton in his first ever game in Blue. He was at the top of his game in 2010 all right, especially considering his receivers that year were Terence Edwards and Jaymael Smith.

You sound so very optimistic. Maybe 1-8 or 0-9. Look BC and Edm is not really a strong team right now... will they be before the start of the 2016 season? Who knows. That really depends on the OC and DC that they're going to get hired... for sure not much left there. I say Cgy will still remain on the top in terms of their O, their D will be a question mark since they will have a rookie DC in Claybrooks. Expectation on the Riders will probably higher because of the addition of Jones. But how he will manage to put back their Cdn depth remains to be seen. I was kind of joking, which I do a lot. But also making a point - it appears that we have the interim coach built in already should we have another crappy season and Osh needs to go. Also - Edmonton just won some trophy a few weeks ago, trying to remember what it was...

so by game 9 of next year, when we are 2-7, Osh is gone and Lapo takes over as head coach?

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.

LOL - Desmog blog - dedicated to discrediting anybody, especially scientists, who doesn't fall in line with the cultist doom-saying AGW apocalypse. Oh no! A scientist who says AGW fear-mongering is nonsense has a brother in law who once pumped gas at Exxon in high school, so therefore he is "in the pay of Big Oil!" Just a load of total crap.

Is it, though? Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.