Sports Finals

PB asked:


The sports car that i have in mind is the new 2010 Camaro.

The7thElement asked:


ive been trying to buy order the real WC 2006 ball from amazon.com but after putting my address and everything, it says it cant be shipped to my area. so i tried amazon.ca but that website only has sections for books, music, movies, games!
here’s the ball: http://www.amazon.com/adidas-World-Teamgeist-Finals-Soccer/dp/B000G16U9S/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_img_in

so does that mean only americans can buy sports stuff from this website? what about someone from canada?
thanks

Robert O asked:


I just made this deck last week and played it for the first time yesterday afternoon in a tournament at my local shop without sufficient play-testing. I went 3-1 in 4 rounds and ended up in 5th place because of tie-breakers. It beat an incomplete Lightsworn deck (incomplete meaning no cards like Judgment Dragon or Charge of the Light Brigade), a Six Samurai deck, a Monarch deck, and, in the final match, lost to a Gladiator Beast deck in a great match. Well after giving all that info, here it is. Rate it or fix it if need be.

Rat Toolbox Synchro

Main Deck (41)

Monsters (21)

1 Green Baboon, Defender of the Forest
3 Giant Rat
3 Nimble Momonga
3 Ryko, Lightsworn Hunter
1 Manticore of Darkness
2 Marauding Captain
3 Psychic Commander
2 Jutte Fighter
1 Exiled Force
1 D.D. Warrior Lady
1 Neo-Spacian Grand Mole

Spells (11)

2 Emergency Teleport
1 Monster Reborn
2 Reinforcements of the Army
1 Brain Control
1 Heavy Storm
1 Mystical Space Typhoon
2 Creature Swap
1 Foolish Burial

Traps (9)

3 Solemn Judgment
2 Divine Wrath
1 Mirror Force
1 Torrential Tribute
2 Magic Drain

Extra Deck (15)

3 Stardust Dragon
2 Red Dragon Archfiend
2 Goyo Guardian
2 Thought Ruler Archfiend
1 Magical Android
2 Colossal Fighter
3 Gaia Knight, Force of the Earth

Side Deck (15)

1 D.D. Assailant
1 Legendary Jujitsu Master
1 Exiled Force
1 Enemy Controller
1 Pot of Avarice
2 Phoenix Wing Wind Blast
2 Compulsory Evacuation Device
2 Bottomless Trap Hole
2 Shadow-Imprisoning Mirror
2 Light-Imprisoning Mirror

zporiri asked:


ive got a few ideas but could use some more. so far ive really only have had 2 quality ideas-black sox and pete rose (doesnt have to be just baseball). also i need to show evidence that it has had a large impact on its individual sport or sports in general, so it cant be anything too recent.

Jeffy D asked:


Who is your fav team and player from each of these sports?
Baseball- Red Sox and Ellsbury
Basketball- Mavs and Dirk Novinski
Football- Titans or Cowboys and Tony Romo
Hockey- Penguins or Predators and Sydney Crosby
How about least favorite?
Baseball- Yankees and Johnny Damon
Basketball- Spurs and Tim Duncan
Football- Patriots and Tom Brady
Hockey- Red Wings and Chris Chellos
And finnaly Predictions
‘08 World Series? Brewers
‘08-’09 NBA finals? Celtics
‘08-’09 Super Bowl? Cowboys
‘08-’09 Stanley Cup? Flyers (although I **** them)

Abby Normal asked:


I didn’t actually watch more than clips on ESPN for the first 3 or 4 days.

Since then my total hours would be perhaps 8 or 9. And you?

Thanks for adding to this poll’s sampling.

BB asked:


Should these IPCC scammers be spending time in prison?

True nature of climate change ‘highly uncertain’
Published Date: 13 September 2008
By TOM HARRIS & JOHN MCLEAN
John Woods, Director of Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland, asserts in his September 11 opinion piece: “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws together the work of over 2,500 scientists, has concluded that most of the increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases from human activity.”
This is a highly misleading statement.

Here’s the real situation.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts out “assessment reports” every five years or so, its latest being the much cited 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Each assessment report covers the work of three working groups.

The approximately 1,000-page Working Group I (WG I) report, entitled The Physical Science Basis, contains the assertion made by Mr Woods above; its exact wording is found in Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, and is the following: “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

So how many of the 2,500 scientists who reviewed parts of the complete IPCC report actually reviewed this statement?

Very few indeed.

We know this because, for the first time ever in 2007, the UN released on the Web scientist reviewers’ comments concerning the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the Second Order Revision) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. What we find is that a grand total of 62 reviewers commented on the critical Chapter 9; in other words, 2.5 per cent of the total 2,500 participants.

Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors.

And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interests (being employees of governments that already had decided on the outcome, for example), leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven had interesting comments about the IPCC Chapter 9 statement that Mr Woods implies 2,500 IPCC reviewers support:

Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada said, “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report.

Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an IPCC Official Expert Reviewer since the organization started, called the IPCC Chapter 9 assertion “typical IPCC doubletalk” and concluded: “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

A determination of the level of support among the 62 reviewers of Chapter 9 is subjective but a generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the chapter as a whole.

Of these, four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report.

Mr Woods’ implication that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the recent UN climate reports, is clearly nonsense.

Leading Canadian climatologist Dr Timothy Ball sums up the situation well: “The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t.

“Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/3425/OPINION-True-nature-of-climate.4488683.jp?articlepage=1