Wrecker45

I'll just remind all those alarmists dee-luded is just one more member of your consensus.

CBF - It's a shame that is your last post in this thread because i enjoy your contribution. I am even going to post 2 replies to your latest (ok I don't know how to multi post even though I am an expert on the global climate ). The irony in your post about Abbott trying to make it about a political or public consensus is that the IPCC is the church of global warming and they are claiming a consensus. Science is not about a vote. I welcome balanced enquiries. Just because you are in favour of wind farms and other forms of energy you believe are renewable should not rule out enquiries into them. To say so is naive. Water is essential to life and enquiries into water are essential on so many levels I wont even go into them here Coal is good for humanity. Cheap energy is the best way to eradicate poverty I am very open minded but I don't even understand the argument for refusing Bjorn Lomborg a place at an Australian University to theorise about the Opportunity Cost of Climate Change policies. I don't agree with Bjorn at all about his assumption on Carbon Dioxide and global warming but I will argue for his right to say it. What is so dangerous about what he has to say that people are trying to shut down? Let's hope Turnbull puts science first. I think he might have a Rudd like ego bent on popularism first. CBF says "Superstition? Years worth of global temperature, arctic permafrost and sea level records and you are comparing all of this to four leaf clovers and lucky rabbit's feet? Wrecker45 says I keep reverting back to the years of global temperatures and everything that is measurable. It is the alarmist crowd that rely on future models and four leaf clovers.

Sorry to take you back there but... I don't know what game plan would have suited those players?

That is worrying.

Don't think that is far off. Perhaps Lumumba for Stretch (bigger bodied and giving concessions for the injury we recently found out Lumumba carried through year). Also think Pederson offers more than Dawes, however, the powers that be seem to see it the other way.

My bet is whoever we take at 10 we will say we're pleased because we would have taken him at 6.

I hope the other countries act on superstition too. It will give us a competitive advantage over them and after the post Costello years we need every advantage we can get. We will also be able to give our children and grandchildren a real world example of why science isn't about politics or consensus.

Kennedy was sub for alot of them.

Don't forget Prendergast never actually watched Jurrah before we drafted him. Perhaps he should have done that a bit more often. We might have fluked some.

There is a park next to Lygon Street me and my mates walked through about 10 years ago and we got punched up in a completely unprovoked attack. They just came from everywhere for no reason whatsover. We didn't even know they were there until they were punching us.

Jara my warmest and most authentic thank you for you and Tony Abbott for fighting a real Australian problem on the front line. I hold fireys right up there with life savers.

When I look at the stats on the left under my user name it says: 0 warning posts.I am not going to address your ridiculous post in fear of losing that.

Greater minds than mine and yours said we should take Toumpas over Ollie Wines. Now the real world evidence indicates Wines would have been a better pick. The game is not over yet and Toumpas could come right back but on current observations our prediction was a dud.

Earl Hood you will notice despite writing extensively on climate change I have never mentioned how we missed last summer and how cold this past winter has been because it is local weather not global climate. You do yourself no favours mentioning a few hot days locally in October as evidence of global warming. I'd also appreciate a link to whatever records you claim are being broken. And also point out (again) that we have been warming since the Little Ice Age so of course we are getting record temperatures when you begin measuring from the Little Ice Age. I'd also point out that it is great for mankind that we have warmed since then. The IPCC in 1990 predicted warming of 0.2 to 0.5 °C per decade over the next few decades “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual ... a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade) ..." whereas in the real world we've had at most 0.17°C per decade since then. This is fact and not a matter of subjectivity. You can check at any of the 5 major data sets but for convenience sake here is a link to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). The models were wrong then and they haven't changed their sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide since so why would they be correct now? I also ask you what P-man wouldn't answer for me. What can falsify global warming theory? And if nothing can it is not science.

He seems to react quickly, read the play well and is evasive when he has the footy. He doesn't have raw speed over 20m.

I don't like discussing religion much either.

In your opinion how can the science be falsified? II'll give you a tip; if it can't be it is not scientific.

CBF - I went to page 11 as well as reading the rest of the brochure. Karen's interest in alternative music and student activism as a from of teenage rebellion was given as background not a reason for her becoming a destructive eco-terrrorist. In the other case studeies background was given as well. Erin felt she didn't belong and maybe had self esteem issues. Jay didn't have a father and had an impressionable nature. Karen was rebellious. I think background was included so people could relate to the people and see how quickly and easily they can be lead down the wrong path. I think anyone far left or right who believes what they're doing is righteous and therefore the right thing to do without question is dangerous.

I've written extensively about global warming on Demonland. Feel free to point out anything that I have said that is factually incorrect.

I don't like the Andrew's Government but I think they've nailed this. Public Holidays don't have the same crippling effect they had on the economy 20 years ago. The dynamics have changed. People work longer hours, work from home, are connected to email and their mobiles 24/7. Industries that would suffer due to loss of output like manufacturing are dead. Melbourne wants to be the sporting capital of the world well lets cement it with a festival revolving around the Grand Final. I went for a walk through Yarra Park this morning and it looks awesome with rides and activities for the kids. The Grand Final can only fit 100,000 but the Grand Final festival can attract 100's of thousands more. All the train lines head there. I'd rather take the kids their than the Royal Melbourne Show. i can only see this getting bigger.

I certainly didn't think he was a liability with the ball.

I honestly don't know where to start. You said there was zero evidence of bias and then when presented with evidence by the ABC's own handpicked reviewer you don't even bother to read it. If you had you would realise it wasn't one solitary interview as you claimed. The following findings of bias were also mentioned: An Emma Albercici Lateline interview was deemed to have given the impression of bias A 7.30 Tasmania story on welfare cuts was also singled out for being "overwhelmingly negative" to the government. ABC panel program The Drum also erred in an episode by giving two spots to two "obviously proLabor panellists" – former Labor speechwriter Michael Cooney and Saturday Paper columnist Mike Seccombe Why is the bias always against the liberals? Secondly I didn't call you far left because you are a tree hugging, abc defender but rather in retaliation for implying I am from the far right because I dare to point out the bias in the national broadcaster. Lastly please don't ever associate me with RobbieF.

P-man I religiously watch the 7pm news, 7:30, media watch and Q&A. I also often watch the beginning of Insiders until I can't bare it anymore and switch it off so you're barking up the wrong tree if you were implying I just complain about bias without watching. As for zero evidence of bias you obviously haven't seen the ABC commissioned Editorial Review where its hand picked reviewer found anti-liberal bias. But don't let facts get in the way of your far left ideology. If you think the ABC is non-partisan it is more likely you are blinded by your own bias.

Can you take a pic of it and post it? Sounds like a agree with you on the brochure. I care "what side" the abc is on because it is publicly funded and is legally on lodge to be impartial. I have no problem with fairfax, the guardian, new Matilda, crickey or Andrew bolt's bias because they are not.

CBF - have you seen the anti-radicalisation kit or are you just relying on an article by the abc that says there is a twitter hashtag poking fun at it? The day the abc and Twitter start hating Turnbull is the day I will consider voting for him.