Wrecker45

Let's wait and see where Dom Tyson is at after 50+ games.

Hopefully they took him straight up to Punt Rd oval to see the Richmond club doctor. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I don't see it that way. There are sub-teams in both i.e swimmers, gymnasts, track and field versus backline, midfield, forwards. Surely they are one entity The Australian Olympic team. Were the EFC ruled by one? I assume you mean Hird? He certainly wasn't ruling, there was Bomber Thompson, a board and Tania ruling over him

If only we were playing their C team so we could give it Sylvia.

I have wondered about that as well hoopla. If the Australian Olympic team had a large quantity of an illegal drug on the premises but no record of who had taken it could you find all the individual athletes guilty? Could WADA disqualify the whole team?

I was curious about that as well. JKH killed it in the 3km time trial and in the sessions I have seen he has been really clean with his disposal. There are few players (more than I can ever remember) that I think could really surprise this year with their improvement and JKH is one of them

I think he will do stints in the midfield this year. Roos rotated him through the centre on one or two occasions last season but that was off no pre-season. I have a feeling he will go through a bit for frequently when his fitness is right up.

I think Abbott is worse than Bush but better than Gillard...

dee-luded I don't know why I am even replying to you but for the record a picture of George Bush in no way disproves the hiatus, acknowledged by the IPCC and visible in the graphs posted in this thread.

Real funny because I don't remember the Gillard Government relying on Wilkie to stay in power.

I respect that and agree arguing with someone who has a closed mind is not worth your time (or mine). I will say though that if the evidence changes I will change my mind. Right now whilst the real world data flies in the face of the IPCC predictions I am happy to be in the "Denier" camp.

P-man I can't open the first link and I am really not buying into the 2nd. I feel like I am arguing belligerently against AGW because I keep disagreeing with everything but I am open minded on the topic and was once a massive believer. I just changed my mind when the evidence shifted. The 97% of scientists study has been widely debunked. You only need to google it to see the number of papers on it. I post a link only because you did as well. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming/print I am happy to argue any of the points but really don't want to get into an argument over who can post the most supporting links.

Reminds me of Junior. I bet you would not find one Melbourne supporter who has a bad word to say about him. Culture killer for the WB? Lost their captain and coach as well. They could be in for some lean years.

You might need to re-read the post of mine you are replying to. I said NASA disputed that the heat was going into the ocean and have since provided a link. The desperate hypothesis bit was my observation.

Good point daisycutter . Also 1910 to 1940 looks to have increased at a very similar rate. Could it be that CO2's effect on climate is completely over stated?

Everyone agrees it has got hotter since The Little Ice Age in 1850. It has just stopped warming since 1998 which is contrary to all the IPCC's predictions. Whilst there has been a hiatus in global temperatures man made CO2 has been expelled into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels. If you believe the theory then the global temperature should have gone up during that period.

It doesn't completely but given the "science" that is apparently settled didn't predict or foresee the hiatus it casts down on their other predictions.

The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Thanks daisycutter. Hiatus from 1998 globally confirmed.

This is disputed by NASA and only a desperate hypothesis as to why the original hypothesis that CO2 is heating the atmosphere didn't occur.

None that I am aware of but I am happy to be proven wrong.

HadCRUT4 is the data set to put up but I am not sure how to post it. Please google it if you think I am "cherry picking" but it is THE data set.

No you don't. P-man is actually giving a reasonable argument.

Don't you find it a little curious that the scientists who are saying the hiatus is not meaningful are also the ones who didn't predict it in the first place?

Why wont you quote me and answer my questions? I will happily answer any of yours. There is no rapid warming unless you choose a strategic starting point and stopping point. Rapid warming inline with alarmist predictions went from 1977 to 1998. If you wont concede the hiatus from 1998 until 2015 (and going), how can you claim the warming when they are both over similar time periods? Did client scientist Pieter Tans predict that the world would stop warming from 1998 with his established physics and chemistry?