Gator

If you have an open mind re the climate I encourage you to listen to the talk given by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) linked below. Heller was a global warming enthusiast from 1980-2003. In this talk he irrefutably proves that NASA and NOAA fudge their data to suit the narrative they want to portray. He shows graphs, articles, and emails. It's very informative for even someone like yourself, who seemingly believes man is dangerously warming the planet and billions being spent to combat it is somehow a good thing. After you've had time to view it let me know what you think. EDIT: for some reason the video starts at 8 minutes 50. Just scroll back to the beginning.

I have no idea. I've never studied or investigated anything to do with the fossil fuel industry. In my spare time I've looked into the merits of specifically climate change.

To show a warming that isn't there. To continue a narrative that the planet is warming dangerously. They do this to support a view they genuinely believe, but can't always prove and to also receive the funding they've been accustomed to receiving. It's not hard. And even if you astonishingly still don't understand the question you can still answer it. Do you think NASA and NOAA have altered historical data sets to show a warming that didn't exist to make it now appear that it did ? Hint: there are 4 possible answers. Yes, no, maybe, or don't know.

Their "own ends" means fraudulently manipulating historical data to make previous data sets look different. i.e. making cooler periods now warmer than they were. A simple yes or no will suffice.

A question to the climate worshippers. Do you think NASA and NOAA manipulate data to suit their own ends ?

I think they mean 3% now from annual measuring of atmospheric carbon having grown since the industrial revolution some 150 years ago. There's no doubt we're producing more carbon today than 50 years ago, so that percentage should keep increasing.

Defence isn't a waste. Never be vulnerable to those that wish us harm and we have to have the capacity to do our bit when needed. It's reciprocal. The submarines are an utter joke. Turnbull and Pyne are a disgrace. Talk about wasted billions over SA politics. Border protection protects your children. We should know everything about those who want to walk freely amongst us and not lure those wishing a better life to a death at sea. And nor should we encourage the scourge of people smuggling. i'd like politicians to be better paid. To get the best you have to provide an incentive. Why would those with clever minds want to be on a politicians wage ? And I don't like career politicians. Once upon a time professionals thought they could make a difference after they'd succeeded in business, the law, or industry. They'd make a contribution (or otherwise) and get out. Now it's a gravy train forever. Politics shouldn't be a "career".

Your first answer isn't the question. But at least you can stop referencing your care to future generations, as it's no different to mine. There's no moral superiority. As for Australia and "our donations". You know, the wasted billions ? It's taxpayer money. It's not the government's to waste. Where do you think this money comes from ?

Yeah, I've read their convenient guesses. IF CO2 really drove temperatures you wouldn't have 4000 ppmv in an ice age. I agree though with their reference to the sun. Solar energy drives temperatures, not CO2. See link. http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl Have a read of this. Some light reading for the weekend. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html Btw, answer my question. Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ? And comment on the following. Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years. As for NASA ? They're a waste of space. They fraudulently manipulate data. I'm exceptionally happy to admit I only quote them when it suits me. Reason being ? Zealots love NASA and the IPCC.

Do you think you care more about your children than skeptics ? Whatever Australia does won't affect the planet in a 1,000 years. So your moral superiority, or should I say virtue signalling, is greatly misplaced. If CO2 drives temperatures why was the planet in an ice age when CO2 was 800 percent higher ?

The word "denier" is offensive, as it's intentionally linked to the holocaust. I'm a skeptic. Spending billions on a problem that doesn't exist, and even if it did you can't influence anyway, is about as stupid as mankind has reached. Especially when some people can't afford to keep warm or turn the lights on due to the cost of energy through mad green schemes or policies. And the best you can do is call someone cheap ? If the mad Greens or gutless major parties really thought we were damaging the planet they'd go nuclear. I know you're not a stupid guy, but your brains vacate when you think of "climate change".

It is laughable. Just more dud predictions. Why don't you comment on the NASA report on Antarctic ice sheets ? Why don't you comment on 20,000 years of sea level rises, but much slower rises since humankind ? Why don't you comment on the IPCC report that says confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low ? Why don't you comment on the fact we're spending billions of dollars on climate schemes when we contribute 0.045% of atmospheric CO2, i.e. we don't heat the planet and nor can we affect the climate by any reductions in emissions ? 97% of CO2 is natural and 3% man made. Of the man made we contribute 1.5%. CO2 does not drive temperatures. You're just another zealot addicted to climate porn.

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years. Interestingly, rises have been less in a coal driven world. I have a graph I'll upload later. In the meantime...

This Australian team seems in conflict with a NASA report from just two years ago regarding Antarctic ice. Oct. 31, 2015 NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Btw... Here's a link to a PDF policy report from the IPCC in 2013, which includes comments on the intensity of tropical cyclones. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low. Comments ?

Did you read that article with a straight face ?

Btw, what happened to the good doctor ? Left ?

I see you're still fighting the good fight, Wrecker, as futile as it is. I have no doubt that Leftist climate zealots are immutable in their views and that even if anthropogenic climate change was unequivocally proven to be false they still wouldn't change their minds. There's no point engaging them. I post for some of the silent readers, who just may have an open mind. 444 million years ago CO2 was over 4,000 ppmv (compared to today's 403 ppmv Sep. 2017) yet there was glaciation, as opposed to a runaway greenhouse effect. This is a clear counter to the argument that CO2 is the driving force of climate change. But still it won't make a difference to those addicted to climate porn. About 1% of earth's atmosphere is gases, including obviously CO2. CO2 is about .04% of the earth's atmosphere. What is continually overlooked is that mankind contributes 3% of atmospheric CO2 compared to the 97% which occurs naturally. Australia contributes about 1.5% of that 3%, or in other words .045% of atmospheric carbon. Australia's contribution to atmospheric carbon is negligible, almost nothing. For this privilege we spend billions of dollars in order to lower the planet's temperatures when we a) have no impact on the planet's temperature and b) can't change it anyway. Genius. Future generations will look back at the futility of these wasteful exercises wondering why their forebears were so inept. They'll write books that will be analysed in classrooms. In the 1970's climate scientists were worried about global cooling. Then it was global warming. But the planet stopped warming, so now it's climate change. It has always changed and always will change. Our crops weren't going to grow, but now we're having record harvests. The planet has been greening for 30 years. In fact, there are plenty of arguments to suggest that some warming is beneficial and certainly better than cooling. There's no evidence to suggest the planet is warming "dangerously". There are supposed to be more hurricanes. They're the lowest they've been in a decade and until recently one hadn't landed on the US mainland since 2005. It was the longest streak since 1851 when they started keeping records of hurricanes in the US. Climate change is more about globalisation and re-engineering the world's economy than it is about solving any dire threat. Of course, none of the above will stop the climate zealots. I know that. But in time the noise will become less and less. Btw, Wrecker, I have a few of the dopey zealots here on ignore, so you'll understand why I don't engage. You know the ones, where up is down and down is up.

Steven Smith was OK. But little more than that.

You know you've been pathetic for 50 years when key defenders of the calibre of Danny Hughes and Steven Smith are making teams. I'm not saying that's wrong by the way, just an indictment.

Good effort, although Grinter wouldn't make my second side let alone the first.

I don't care about his length of contract. He's on the list and will be given every opportunity. When I say boom, I mean A grade. If he makes A grade it will take 4 years at least. BUT that's not to say he won't become a regular in the 22 by season's end. Up to him. Do you normally make things more complicated than they need be ?

He just needs to show he's worthy of a spot on the list in 2018. He has time like all 20 year olds. If he booms it will be at the age of 25.

He's certainly a classy/smooth mover. He reminds a little of Josh Kelly and Stephen Hill in his lateral movement, albeit without the speed, although as mentioned in numerous bios, he's athletic. I have a feeling there'll be little middle ground on this one. Boom or bust.

I've found some more pre-draft info, including a summary from Quigley on BF, who;s one of the best in the business. Pick 12 (Adelaide) – Harley Balic Position: Midfielder/half-Back Size: 187cm/80kg Player Comparison: Scott Pendlebury In the Mix: Francis, H McKay Having lost Dangerfield in the trade period, Adelaide will be looking for a taller midfielder with a bit of class. Balic fits this criteria perfectly as a midfielder who can play forward or back. Balic excels in traffic thanks to his basketball and that, along with his height, has seen him compared to Pendlebury. When forward Balic leads to the right places and has a terrific overhead mark. The Crows will be hoping that Francis gets through to this pick, while Mathieson is another option. Quigley 13. Harley BalicHt – 187 Wt - 82Balic seems to be slipping down a few mocks in the media and I am not really sure why. If he goes where a few of those pundits have him going he could easily end up the steal of the draft. Up until this year Balic has been splitting time between basketball and AFL and as a result there are still some rough edges to be polished. I can see there being a fair bit of difference in the ratings for Balic between teams and it is not out of the question that a team could love him and take him much higher than most expect. He has a very high ceiling and if he developed to his best he could be an elite midfielder at the next level.Balic is at his best when he is the focus of a unit whether it is in the midfield, up forward or down back. When he is, he tends to rise to the occasion and good things happen around him. He is very good one on one and can impose himself on a game like few in this draft. He has improved quite a lot over the course of the year but there are still areas he needs to work on.One of the areas he has been working on, and one that still needs some work, is his kicking. There is quite a lot of difference between Balic’s best and worst and at the moment there is still a bit too much of the worst in his game. There is not a lot wrong with his kicking style and I expect that with some intense work he will flatten out the flight on his kicks and be more consistent about getting it where it needs to go. Up forward his set shot technique is entirely too variable. He needs to get a routine and stick to it and work on improving his balance in his approach a bit more. With all that said though there is quite a bit of class in what he does even by foot. He has brought a heads-up approach from basketball and he has excellent peripheral vision. He tends to play to the short options but he usually takes good ones and is very good delivering into the 50.Balic has played a lot more as an inside mid this year and he has shown pretty decent potential in that role. His kicking out of the clearances was a bit ordinary but by hand he is really good. His vision in the contest is excellent and is creative by hand getting it to good attacking options. As mentioned above he is very good one on one and he has good strength over the ball. He works through traffic well and is one of those guys who never looks rushed even when there are opponents all around him.Athletically Balic seems pretty good in everything but pace. He ran a 15.3 beep last year and he plays with excellent agility. He can also fly when he has to and tends to play tall. Speed wise he looks like he is cruising around at ¾ pace for most of the game. He is smooth around the park and, for those of you old enough to remember, moves a lot like Michael Long. He is quite solid but has a loose limbed, very agile style.Balic made a name for himself last year as a half forward and he is a very good mark. He can get up and he watches the ball into his hands very nicely. He also has very good body control in the air and he can keep the defender where he can’t get to the ball. He is not a good converter though and if he is going to play as a half forward at the start of his career he is going to need to improve his finishing.On the outside Balic looks calm and composed and can often create opportunities for his team. He has improved his spread this year a lot and upped his disposal count to 23 disposals a game in the TAC and went at 22 a game at the Champs. At times at the Champs he was in a mile of space with no-one in cooee indicating that he is working out how to use his running ability more effectively. Balic is a talent and I think could be an excellent player in a few years.