Gator

It was only an early glimpse, but I liked the look of him at training. He reads the play really well at a stoppage and loves bursting clear. A nice touch was Jesse wandering over under his own volition and joining in two or three stoppage drills with the newbies and Brett Allison. After one of them he had the groups attention for 30 seconds or so as he gave some tutelage. He then wandered off somewhere else. He has an unmistakeable leadership quality.

His endurance won't get to the point where he's a viable option to get games next year, imho. You disagree ? Fantastic.

They see the X factor and talent we all see and are prepared to see how it ferments over the next 12 months. And yes, take it to the bank that Roos is huge on "runners". Jack Viney isn't a runner, but he has willed himself to be a satisfactory runner. We have 40 players on our primary list. Where do you think Hunt currently ranks ? I'm guessing it's 40. (yes, he's still behind the Terlichs of this world) So when you say "why is he still on the list" ? He's a hairs breadth from not being. But with a list of 40 plus rookies it's not an unreasonable gamble when you've got to know the player.

Roos wants runners. He's always talking about runners. It's more so with less rotations and no sub. Hunt is too far back to get games in 2016 (imho). We'll find out soon enough.

Ben Kennedy is renowned for his poor endurance. It's one of the reasons Collingwood let him go. At training Kennedy was noticeably poor in his running in the same group as Hogan, Hunt, and Watts. Hogan was beating him by 70 metres in the final lap sessions. Watts easily had his measure. Hunt was a fair way behind Kennedy. That puts into perspective how poor Hunt's endurance is and how far he's coming back from. Can he get to "satisfactory" levels without the sub by the season proper ? I don't think so. Btw, I'm not making any assertions as to why his endurance is poor. It could be injury or just not being a great aerobic athlete. I'm merely making the observation. Although, I suspect the latter, as he's a good sprinter and the combination of speed and endurance is rare.

OK then. Let him know I'm prepared to give him a go.

Won't happen. He has no tank and while he has no tank I can't see him getting a game. I don't think he can improve it to satisfactory levels by the start of the season.

I've heard from two separate sources that the players love Goodwin. And I mean love. Posters are right to say that people won't genuinely share bad news, but they don't need to be effusive as they have with their admiration for Goodwin. Needless to say this doesn't mean he'll be a great coach. But it's a great start and I reckon you're halfway there. Naturally, others can please themselves as to how reliable they consider this information.

I don't really hate you. I quite like you, Tim. You're grouse.

There's no doubt you're right, however, I've always been excited by young players coming to the club - finals or no finals. It's the regeneration of a club and a glimpse into the future. I'll never tire of seeing quality players start their career.

They were there. So was the scooter.

I hate the left as much as they hate the right (more so). So yeah, if you're left then you're right. Or left. But we can still agree on footy. Or not.

I will never forget this poster.

It’s amazing isn’t it ? 400 ppm or 400 parts per million. It’s an infinitesimal amount – 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere. But yes, it has a significant impact, as it makes all life on Earth possible. Eliminate CO2 and plants die. Human and animal life wouldn’t be far behind. Little wonder CO2 is called by some the “gas of life”. If CO2 falls to 220 ppm plants begin to get sick. There is empirical evidence that many crops and plant foods flourish at much higher CO2 levels than 400 ppm. Our planet began to emerge from the Little Ice Age around 1800 when CO2 was 280 ppm. In that time average global temperatures have increased a whopping 0.8°Celsius. If I walked downstairs into another room I’d experience that change in my own house. It’s worth noting that temperatures in the past have been higher with less CO2 ppm. The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008). In the medieval warm period 900-1250 temperatures were 2°C higher than now. The point is that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. The factors include solar activity, volcanic activity, water vapour and ocean circulation. I have a question for you, Hardtack. What’s your ideal global temperature ? There are arguments that a warmer client would be more beneficial than what we have now. And what’s the likelihood at any one time that the Earth, which is 4.5 billion years old, will be in a “perfect” climate zone ? To make it easier for you, Maurie.

Come clean, Hardtack. Are you Betsy ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6b_jY1YsY

You'll have to scroll back. We've covered our present 400 ppm in previous posts - don't worry it's in the last few pages. Btw, my point was that Australia's contribution is insignificant as it's 1.5% of the 3% contributed by man, as opposed to the 97% that isn't contributed to by man.

You consider it fraud (something has not been proven)... I consider it an investment in my childrens' future... maybe you don't have kids? You seem to be concerned with the here and now and not in securing the best for future generations... well, I suppose that is a conservative approach. I have children. I also recognise a hoax when I see it. The world has warmed by .8 degrees in 135 years. I get that type of difference walking downstairs in my house to another room. Carbon dioxide is .04% of the atmosphere, which means 99.96% are other elements of our atmosphere. It is infinitesimal. Out of that .04% man contributes 3% of CO2. We're not responsible for 97%. Of the 3%, Australia makes up about 1.5%. Do the effing maths. Our contribution is NOTHING. Our billions don't do ANYTHING. And you think you're helping your children ? Not to mention that the planet is in a relatively cool period. And you can't even tell me what temperature you'd like it to be. It beggars belief.

I quoted the first paragraph, which is common when siting a linked article. I did the same in the next one above yours. As for hip pocket ? It's bloody tax payers' money being wasted on a fraud. Mine, yours. the poor, the rich, every bloody bodies. It's the effing principle, as much as the sheer stupidity and lies.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

The fool above me (hardtack) does himself no favours. I share information that is informative. That article was informative, hence it was shared. Did he think I stopped reading at the part you quoted ? Unlike the Left, conservatives fight for what's right, not a cause. The climate always changes. It always has and it always will. These communities face challenges and they'll need to adapt. Countries like Australia will help and in many cases the islands' ecosystems will help too.

My Brother is quite bullish about Kennedy, but I suspect he's too influenced by his junior days when he looked really promising. I'm underwhelmed, although he definitely has talent.

Dynamic atolls give hope that Pacific Islands can defy sea rise It is widely predicted that low-lying coral reef islands will drown as a result of sea-level rise, leaving their populations as environmental refugees. But new evidence now suggests that these small islands will be more resilient to sea-level rise than we thought. http://theconversation.com/dynamic-atolls-give-hope-that-pacific-islands-can-defy-sea-rise-25436

Ox and Leach - breakfast KB - mornings (same) Maher - afternoons Harford and Allen - drive time Fine - evenings (same) Gaze demoted to "contributor".

Yeah, you'll get balance there.

Leach is an annoying ultra leftie, but the media is full of them, so no news there. I've always loved KB. Mark Allen is arguably the best and most compelling golf commentator in the country. He's also arguably the worst "shift" commentator in the country. He tries too hard to be blokey and funny. It just doesn't work. Relax and be yourself. Schwarz is far better on radio than he ever was on tv and has a warmness and connection with the average bloke in the street. Put simply, he's likeable and works. Fine is amusing, but can become a boor. His strength is his weakness. Although it can grate after a while. But overall he's value. Harford is ok, but a bit boring. He thinks he's better than he is. Gaze fascinates me. How can a fool make a living out of the media ? A complete lightweight, who cannot pronounce the letter "aitch". Maher is a [censored]. He and Gaze keep the left-wing bias ticking along nicely. He also has the worst nasally voice I've ever heard on radio. How someone can make a living in that medium while butchering the English language is also beyond me. I quite like Watson. He's likeable and quick witted. Although the Essendon bias was insufferable. I can't stand Richo, the incessant giggling or the maniacal laugh. Other than that, they're great. Oh, and for some reason no-one on that station knows how to pronounce the word "urine". It's not pronounced "u-rhine". It's pronounced "urin". I even heard the newsreader on 3AW make this basic error. It's extraordinary really.