Gator

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.

It's Knightmare's comparison, not Jason Taylor's.

He's got a terrific broad frame/shoulders. Size is very easy to put on.

Not sure you'll get much of a response. The alarmists round here seem to be weather beaten.

Instead of an ice-free Arctic, we just had the shortest melt season on record – followed by record sea ice growth. Arctic sea ice extent is the highest for the date since at least 2004. Yes, it's still well below the 1981-2010 average, but 950,000 square kilometres above the record low monthly average for October that occurred in 2007. Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometres in spite of the fact that Al Gore predicted it would be ice-free by 2008. Only 7.72 million square kilometres to go. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Firstly, I changed my view on Oliver in the space of 24 hours (Nov 19). The draft was 5 days later and there were no leaks from Melbourne. Anyway, I'm not swayed by club selections, although I have faith in Taylor and reckon he's earnt the benefit of the doubt. Secondly, recruiters watch highlight clips all the time. Do you recommend they not waste their time ? Obviously you'll say it's an adjunct to what they've already witnessed "live". And just as obviously, highlight clips give you an idea of a players ability, such as speed, style, courage, skill, aggression, etc. No-one has insinuated it paints the whole picture, so I'm not sure why you need to state the bleeding obvious. He didn't look "really slow" as you attest and other views that I've quoted are at odds with yours. Thirdly, Boyd and Weideman are not similar types. Snoop Dog even uses Boyd in an analogy to explain why he's not like Boyd. "Sam is a natural forward unlike guys like Boyd etc who have been drafted high in previous years. I think coaches really value key forwards that haven't got their success camped in the goal square clunking marks but rather kids who understand how, when and where to lead. He has real speed and many will find it hard to close space on him once he is ahead of them." Here's Knightmare's bio: 10. Melbourne (via trade) – Sam Weideman (VIC – KPF) Height: 196cm, Weight: 91kg, DOB: 26/06/1997 Recruited from: Eastern Ranges Range: 3-10 Profile: Explosive marking power forward. Reminds me of: Josh Walker I concede that the bolded is stretching it. This from Chris25: "I don't think it's out of the question that he would have performed better than Schache at the Championships. I think he's a smarter player and a better kick. I don't understand those saying he gets by on strength alone. That's so far from the truth." You won't change your view and I won't change my opinion of it.

I prefer to use my eyes and his pace/agility looks good in the clips I've seen. I don't take too much notice of the 20m sprint. Lachie Whitfield ran 3.15, but doesn't look slow. Jack Watts ran 2.82, but rarely plays with pace and rarely looks quick, although we all know his speed can be good. As for Quigley ? I like him, but his rankings are hardly a reliable barometer. He had Eli Templeton at 15 and he wasn't drafted. He was later rookied by the Saints. He said Tom Boyd was just about the best junior key forward he'd seen, which is fair enough, but right now Boyd is a mile off.

If he was slow with the turning circle of a truck why on earth would Taylor draft him in the top 10 ? It doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense then I doubt what you say is true. There's not too much talk around the traps re his pace, but here are a couple of descriptions ... Snoop Dog: Sam is a natural forward unlike guys like Boyd etc who have been drafted high in previous years. He has real speed and many will find it hard to close space on him once he is ahead of them. Knightmare: He has a nice physical profile with his height and size. He is an above average athlete with reasonably good pace and leaping ability without being a freak athlete.

The Depths of the Climateers’ Deception https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/11/depths-climateers-deception/

You haven't read the terms of the bet correctly, Ron.

I'll respond as I see fit.