clam linguine

Oh sorry....I wasn't upset. I'm happy to eat my words on this. I forgot this about Forsberg (always mix him up with Sundin). Ok then Datsyuk and Forsberg. Maybe I should have stuck to the AHL.

Oh yeah, lol, Datsyuk...good for breaking all the norms. I figured there'd be one....that's why I said two.

I thought we were hoping for Sakic or Forsberg. You give me Schwartz. There probably are some, so just name two you want EP to aspire to be as good as. I haven't researched it, so shove it down my throat. If he's going to be great, he'll be on the team next year.

Sweden this year ...Utica next year....close enough....two years anywhere after being drafted.

I wonder if the scenario you describe has ever happened in history. Who are the best two drafted forwards that needed two years in the minors

No sarcasm. Can you name a couple forwards who spent two years in the minors after their draft year and are as good as you hope EP turns out? Maybe there are some. Who do you suggest.

If he's not on the team next year, he's not the player we're hoping for.

Brooke Henderson returns a favour to Lydia Ko by winning Lydia's home tournament down in New Zealand. Brookes 5th career win and 2nd of the year. She's now in 4th place in the race to the CME Globe Championship. Yay!! Nice cape!

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on’ Read the Full Article Curry: 'Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.' 'The huge amounts of rain are associated with Harvey’s stalled movement.' Phil Klotzbach has prepared this list off Cat 4-5 U.S. landfalling hurricanes:

Lol...yeah...no prob. I do remember a few of your posts on the subject regarding land melting and releasing methane. Interesting and concerning stuff. (unlike anthro CO2)

Yeah....too bad that's not what I said...what a dreamer. Did Fat Al mention how CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere? No, I don't believe he did. Here's how your Climate change guru in Skeptical Science advises to handle this arguement: CO2 makes up 390 ppm (0.039%)* of the atmosphere, how can such a small amount be important? Saying that CO2 is "only a trace gas" is like saying that arsenic is "only" a trace water contaminant. Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects. Great answer, except CO2 isn't arsenic, it's a very weak greenhouse gas. Methane for instance is 30 times stronger. There's been times when CO2 levels were 10X higher than present and glaciation still occurred. Really, CO2 fanatics need to give it up. It wouldn't hurt you to read this either Mr @Nuxfanabroad.

More like people bought a theory in a flawed documentary.... and have been trying to justify it and manipulate it ever since.

Their funding is their career. No one doubts humans have had some effect on climate. The significance of CO2 is the issue. It's early. I hear Hawking believes in god. Interesting.

Where did I say you did?

I guess lack of the usual dust from the sahara is resulting in a tougher hurricane season. It must not be hot enough over there. The 97% consensus is a baseless lie from a fool that Obama chose to repeat. It was then gobbled up by his drool bucket media. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#7ae2fdb53f9f

So true. For all the hysteria, the rise in sea level has not been accelerating. Here's a chart right out of the climate changers bible, Skeptical Science. Since 1930 a straight line can easily be plotted showing a rise of about an inch every 10 years. Not exactly scary. Good luck getting this info from the scare mongers or Obama's government agencies. You have to work for it. They'll throw in whatever red herring they can....like the phony mildly curved trend line below. That being said, sea levels are rising some, so no harm in planning for future defense of the coastline in some areas if necessary.

You're responsible for burning fossil fuel. You're free to stop giving oil companies piles of money to sleep on any time. It's so unbelievably lazy to blame them for your consumption.

Sorry, it's just business as usual, and fear mongering as usual. https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/09/18/yes-hurricane-season-has-been-worse-than-usual/677360001/ Blast from the past? Yet, as bad as it's been, some of this season's intensity is really just a blast from the past. Irma, for instance, was "reminiscent of the great hurricanes that unleashed their fury on Florida in the first seven decades of the 20th century ... and then for the most part disappeared," said Weather Channel meteorologist Bryan Norcross before the storm hit. "Mother Nature’s hurricane-output cycle has its ups and downs," he added, "and a lull came along in the 1970s, 80s, and early 1990s — Hurricanes Frederic, Hugo and Andrew notwithstanding." Meanwhile, especially in typically hurricane-prone states such as Florida, a race to build along the shore went unfettered. The hoax is that CO2 controls the climate. If global warming is a critical concern, humans should take an active role in climate management. Why fool around with ineffective CO2 initiatives.

The day OJ got picked was the day I surrendered. Edit Meh...Boeser has 3 goals....hope springs eternal

Finally watched the geo engineering video from a page back, "Exposing the Global Climate Modification Assault". Not feeling too well about it. I hope to find some debunking to make me feel better. At least it would confirm my tirades against the silly man made CO2 global warming bull. Considering Harvey will cost 180 billion for cleanup, anti flooding infrastructure investment sounds good. Far right delay tactic?.....lol.

Where have you been? Here's one of many sites that can help explain. http://www.climatedepot.com/ Many scientists agree with the spirit behind the comments you find shocking. John Cook et al., 2013[edit] Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12]They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[12] In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[13]adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[12] In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook et al. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic." However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows: The unquantified definition: "The consensus position that humans are causing global warming" The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)" Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [14] Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencerdisputing the 97% figure, as climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[15] Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook et al. paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along".[16] Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not".[17] Don't be sad for the earth, it will survive a slightly higher than average CO2 level just fine. The planet has.gone from a snowball to a hothouse and from microbes to dinosaurs and can do it again if necessary. Are you worried about you own well being?

Bouchard's problem is she cares too much....not too little.

Or next week's episode will open with Sam walking through field full of broken White Walkers all thanks to his copying punishment.

The "punishment" was a reward. The old guy knows it, Sam will find out. imo