Gator

He still didn't answer your question.

Clubs are pretty transparent these days and if there was any significant interest in Watts he would have said, "we're talking to a couple of clubs about Jack, but at this stage we expect him to remain a Demon unless something unforeseen transpires". There was no interest in Watts. And it is quite possible there was no interest due to Melbourne's price tag.

Mahoney was interviewed every day during the trade period and was nearly always asked about Watts and he stated on numerous occasions that "Jack's name hasn't been brought up by clubs". It was clear there was no interest. Which is hardly surprising.

It's mainly been civil, bar the odd sniping without engaging.

Robbie was Victoria's "only clear winner" in the first State of Origin game Some interesting stats and names from the same game: Another BOG for Flower in the Vics win over WA in 1980. Flower's teammates that day included Leigh Matthews, Kevin Bartlett, Wayne Schimmelbusch, Keith Greig, Southby, Templeton, Garry Wilson, Tim Watson and Bruce Doull. Plus stats of the match: Flower was Vic's best again... 1983 State of Origin South Australia 26.16.172 d Victoria 17.14.116 Goals - SA: Lindner 5, Bradley, Kernahan, Motley 3, Naley, Aish, Platten, Schneebichler 2, Thomas, Copping, McAdam. Vic: Flower 4, Daniher, Wilson 3, Madden 2, Smith, Marcou, Cunningham, Ashman, Hawker. Best - SA: Aish, Bradley, Motley, Giles, Craig, Lindner, Thomas, Rendell. Vic: Flower, Daniher, Serafini, Wilson, Rowlings, Madden. Just pipped by Southby in this one... 1980 State of Origin Victoria 15.12.102 d South Australia 12.13.85 Goals - Vic: Templeton, Bartlett 3, Moncrieff, Flower, Jess 2, Sheldon, Raines, Turner. SA: Roberts 4, McSporran 2, Cornes, Heinrich, Davies, Taylor, Phillips, James.. Best - Vic: Southby, Flower, Lee, Nankervis, Raines, Turner. SA: Cornes, Davies, phillips, McSporran, Kuhlmann, Williams. I hope some enjoy the names and memories. And remember, this was the best against the best. Flower shone. Flower was a superstar.

Flower was a genuine superstar of the game and it's only those that either weren't born or were primary school kids when he retired that would even question his status. It was a different era with no AFL and 12 Victorian teams. At times in his career Flower was considered the best player in the league, which is why he captained his state. He was invariably named best aground or in the "best" in winning teams for the Big V. Imo, Flower should have been named on the wing in the team of the 20th century, but the fact that he was considered in the 4 for that position (along with Peter Matera) is testament to his standing. Consider that again for one moment - Flower was considered in the best 4 wingman in 100 years of footy when footy was all about positional play. Flower was inarguably the greatest goal kicking wingman of all time (40 goals from a wing one year) and in my view should have made that team. If you're not overly familiar with Flower it's probably best that you don't posit an opinion.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries. A majority of earth and climate scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.[1][2] This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus andscientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming at that time were as follows: The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[3] "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[4] If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[5] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.[7] There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[8] the Oregon Petition,[9] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[10] all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.[11][12][13] For the purpose of this list, a "scientist" is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the report's three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Few of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature; most are from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. NB: Only scientists who have their own Wikipedia article may be included in the list. Contents [hide] 1Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections 2Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes 3Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown 4Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences 5Dead scientists 6See also 7Notes 8References 9Further reading 10External links Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17] Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[18][unreliable source?][19] Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[20][21] Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[22][23][24][25] Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [26][27] Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[28][29] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[30][31][32][33] Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada[41][42][43] Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[44][45] Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[46][47] Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[48][49][50][51] Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[52] Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[53][54] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[55][56] Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [57][58] Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[59][60] Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[61][62] Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, andvolcanic emissions.[63] These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[64][65] Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[66][67][68] Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[69][70][71] Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[72][73] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[74][75] Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[76][77] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[78][79] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[80][81] William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[82][83] William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[84][85] Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[86][87] Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[88][89] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[90][91] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[92][93] Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[94][95] Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[96][97] Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[98][99][100] Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[101][102] Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[103][104] Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[105][106] Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[107][108][109] Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[110][111] Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[112][113] Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[114][115][116][117] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[118][119] Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[120][121] Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[122][123] George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[124][125] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[126][127] Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[128][129] Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[130][131] Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[132][133] Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[134][135] John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCCreports.[136][137][138] Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[139][140] David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[141][142] Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[143][144] Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[145][146] Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[147][148] Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[149][150] Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment. Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[151][152][153] Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [154][155] Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[156][157] Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[158][159] Dead scientists This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections. August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[160] Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes:[161] Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute[161] to counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming.[162] Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation.[163] Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923-2011), Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the money flood" of government grants.[164] Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[161][165]

I'm not fussed whether it's getting warmer or not. I'm in the camp that some warming is better than no warming. What makes you think that in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet we happen to be in the perfect weather cycle and that it would be catastrophic for the planet to get warmer ? Also, as mentioned to Hood, it's not whether there's GW, it's whether there's AGW. Many so-called climate scientists are uncertain as to the likelihood that man is responsible for GW. From Jo Nova: What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty. More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.) Fabius Maximus deserves credit for finding and analyzing the study. He notes that only 64% agreed that man-made CO2 was the main or dominant driver controlling more than half of the temperature rise. But of this group (1,222 scientists), only 797 said it was “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”. That’s just 43% of climate scientists who fully agree with the IPCC statement. This survey directly asks climate scientists, unlike the clumsy versions by John Cook, William Anderegg, or Naomi Oreskes that do keyword surveys of abstracts in papers and try to “guess”. Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty. The IPCC AR5 Statement: “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ” — Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I. The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly over-represented, “it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified” pool of publishing climate scientists. Skeptical scientists, I daresay, would be much less likely to use the keyword phrase “global warming” in the papers they do publish. I imagine it’s easier to get papers published that don’t specifically poke the mainstream buttons. http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

Clearly this needs sharing again... Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears: “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium. “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems. “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.” “I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.” “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010] “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote.] “Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.” “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research. “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. “There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.” “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

You and the other weather drones need to understand the debate, Hood. It's not whether we're experiencing GW, it's whether we're experiencing AGW. The planet is at historically cool(ish) levels having just emerged from the Little Ice Age. And as I've pointed out with numerous articles sourced by Goddard, there have been extreme weather patterns, such as ice melts, hurricanes, Pacific Island sea level threats, heatwaves, etc. prior to the industrial revolution (1950). The planet has warmed by .8 degrees since 1880, so there is warming, although obviously not to "dangerous" levels and it hasn't warmed to any significant degree in the past 19 years. There a couple of key points to consider: a) how accurate are climate models ? b) does CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere ? The IPCC will contend their models are accurate, but there's significant proof, as shared on this thread, that they're not. And Dr Glassman's article The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide posits that CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere and indeed lags temperature. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect of rising temperature not a cause of rising temperature.

Just another "nothing" story.

It was great to see the one and only RDB turn up. Signed autographs and posed in photos.

There's no hope for you. You can't see that journalists en masse contribute to the alarmism that you swallow hook, line and sinker. Even a weather drone like yourself should want the news reported in a fair and balanced way without seeing a crowd of journos acting like they're at a Hillsong performance. But that's the point isn't it. It's a new religion to many.

I know the point you're making and agree with it, however, it's most unfair on Yze and Robertson to be mentioned in this conversation. Over a 4 year period Yze had the most kicks in the entire AFL, he won a B&F and made AA. He'd occasionally frustrate me, but he had a fine career in anyone's language. And Russell Robertson also won a B&F, should have made AA when he kicked over 70 goals, and was 4 times leading goal kicker. He's also known as one of the games great high marks. For a player who was ultimately demoted and came back through the rookie draft he too milked the most of his God-given talents. Both players achieved 200 game milestones.

Forget about the messenger and concentrate on the message.

Journalists celebrating the deal at cop21. Look at the excitement in these eco drones. Don't ever expect balance when it comes to GW or most left-wing agendas.

It's a fantastic honour. Well done, Col.

Yeah, that makes sense.

It has nothing to do with faith. As Bolt says, England is a "warmist", but at least knows how to read a graph and tries to explain the "pause".

I completely disagree with you. I constantly wondered why Trengove wasn't putting on muscle. His upper body was especially poor. Having done weights for many years it was obvious.

I prefer the club to build the best list possible. Burgoyne, Lake, Gunston, Frawley. Just build a better list.

None of those words are mine. They are all part of Bolt's article. I wrote the first line re "balance" and nothing more.

It's a bloody good impression.

In the interests of balance, here's Bolt's reply to Aly: Let us focus instead on Aly’s claim that my statement that satellite data shows no statically significant warming for some 18 years is false and that even an RSS scientist, Carl Mears, says so. In fact, Aly himself is wrong because you can see with your own eyes the RSS data showing that warming pause Aly claims doesn’t exist: Aly is wrong because you can see with your own eyes the University of Alabama at Huntsville data that confirms the existence of that pause Aly claims doesn’t exist: Aly is wrong because you can read yourself that this same Carl Mears he quotes has in fact admitted to the pause Aly claims doesn’t exist: Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out thatthere appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets. Aly is wrong because even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change two years ago in its most recent report admitted (albeit very grudgingly) to the pause Aly denies, and tried to explain it away: The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years… This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.... In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend. Aly is wrong because even Professor Matthew England, an Australian scientist as passionately warmist as Aly himself, nevertheless now admits there has indeed been the warming pause that Aly denies, even if, like Mears, he seeks excuses for it: The near two-decade long “pause” in rising average global surface temperatures was a “distraction” that did not change long-term model predictions of a much ­hotter world this century, according to new research. Climate scientists at University of NSW said “natural variability” could explain the slowdown or “hiatus” despite strongly rising ­levels of carbon ­dioxide in the ­atmosphere… Research leader Matthew ­England said ... “It is simply due to decadal variability. Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation,” he said… “This much-hyped global warming slowdown is just a distraction to the task at hand”. Aly is wrong. Aly has misinformed his viewers.

It's him.