Wrecker45

I will. In my experience people that suffer severe trauma (not always sexual) at an early age are proan to confusion over their sexuality and have trouble understanding who they are. I would argue transgenderism can be circumstantial as well as a mental disorder.

Yeah. There doesn't get much more mfc royalty in our premiership drought than Farmer, Neitz and Grinter. They enjoyed a beer too for all those fretting about Spencer and co.

That is the most sensible thing I have ever seen you post.

The next sentence after the flag-bearer comment went on to call them nationalists. IF flag-bearer had nothing to do with Australia's flag in that context it was the writers choice of words that were ambiguous, I don't think I missed the point, but I never do:). It was also TGR not Dieter that typed it. My self loathing left comment was a response to TGR saying the right is all about "me". Both are inaccurate generalisations. As generalisation tend to be. There is a specific brand of left wing politics I despise. Your logical brand of left wing ideology don't fall into that category and I would happily argue for fun with you all day.

At least you know when to raise the white flag.

Jara - You don't seem to get it, the article says the actual figures don't predict those sea level rises. They have "refined" them to get the unprecedented rises. PM me your email address and I will write to the journal, cc you and ask for the raw figures compared to the "refined" ones. I'll also request the workings with an explanation.

There are so many ridiculous points in your dribble I can't be bothered going through all of them. i'll just pick an obvious one. You say "flag-bearers" as if it is some kind of insult. Why would you be a member of this website if you don't love the grand old flag? How does someone choose if it is acceptable to love a flag or not? I can only guess the flag of the self loathing left is a white one.

I know a politician from the left side of politics. I won't give any further clues to protect the child. He has a male child who has his hair grown to look like a young girl. If the child wants to play with a truck or anything that can be perceived as masculine it will be replaced with a doll or something feminine. It is sick and I feel sorry for the child. In my opinion gender is not fluid no matter how many left of centre people wish it was.

No "refined" means they got the (accurate) satellite imagery and adjusted it. just read paragraph 3. The sattelite instruments used to measure height or altitude picked up no such rise. This is a text book example of why people are so sceptical. Why are the sattelite measurements adjusted?

Jara - Honestly this is exactly why there are so many sceptics. Look at the 2nd paragraph. The study used "Refined sattelite estimates". Tell me why you think they need to use refined sattelite figures? As I understand the sattelite measurements are as as accurate as they can get without refinement.

Interesting. I don't have the the breakdown but think that increased population growth leading to a pool of slaves is a very slanted way of looking at it. I'm guessing unskilled immigrants from more disadvantaged countries would find the wages a massive step up to what they are used to. Yes it is a boon for bosses but again I think capitalism makes the rich get richer but drags the poor out of poverty at the same time. Any skilled migration that is meeting a need can only be good for our society. Population growth scares me because of the effect it is having on our culture and crime not because it could be making bosses rich.

I've had a read of the link and tried to take it on board. I agree with a key argument that the Climategate emails don't prove or disprove climate change one bit. If Carbon Dioxide is driving the climate, regardless what those chain of emails say, it will continue to do so regardless. I don't have time to check the terms of reference of each of the six official investigations quoted in the article but I do know what I read in the Climategate emails. Even if I give the benefit of the doubt on the use of the word "trick" and the "hide the decline". Which investigations and those close to the Universitited involved seem to argue vehemently that they were just common terms and there was no malice there. There are still email after emil showing the Universities were colluding and they were preventing any alternative view from their own been publishes in "peer reviewed" journals. This was damning at the time because the argument back then was that climate sceptisim was just witch science because it couldn't be peer reviewed. We know from reading Climategate that no matter how scientifically perfect a sceptic piece on climate change was it had no chance of being peer reviewed at that time. The argument has moved on since then but clearly demonstrates how the science was being stymied at the time.

Hurn got Viney. Viney got him back. Is it the first case of Viney made me cry reciprocation?

It's funny how Lewis keeps playing for teams that get up in close losses.

Ha,flattery can't excuse you from a poor argument. Prodee can argue for himself just fine,but I feel embarrassed to be associated with him. He is one of the great football contributors to demonland. I love a bit of political banter on this site. You and choke provide the left wing argument. I like it. Some of your mates are hopeless.

The sad thing is all the lefties will refuse to watch it because it goes against their confirmation bias.

Which article am i supposed to be reading once i click on the link?

I'll respond to the Climate Council stuff. Can you link to it? Not sure where it was posted. Without having seen it I can honestly say it will be a piece of cake because the facts just don't favour the alarmist side. I don't request that you respond to the Mundine article in reply, I didn't post it. Nor do I claim to embrace the argument. It just seems stereotypical of the left to me, that that you rubbish the author without addressing the content.

Hey Hitler you suck! Has anyone got them in the same sentence before?

I just don't get it. There are plenty of writers from the left I think write ridiculous pieces but I always have the ability to pick them apart because they are poor arguments. The left seem to rubbish an article because of the author even though they can't / don't / won't actually argue the facts in the article. The classic one is Andrew Bolt. I don't agree with lots of what he writes. I also have no expertise in gardening, opera and other topics he covers. But the lefties shout Andrew Bolt in ignorance as if they have just won the argument because their own echo chamber dislike him. Please say what Andrew Bolt said that you disagree with. Maybe he is a [censored] gardiner, I don't know, when the left say "but Andrew Bolt" as some kind of argument it carries no weight. Just as attacking the author carries no weight if you don't counter their argument.

We'll probably end up with early first round picks in both drafts. Not only are Taylor and co good at drafting they're good at dealing as well.

Just look at the bold where you quote me. You misrepresent weather as climate change.

Your words don't misrepresent climate change they epitomise the whole industry.

Hardtack- it would be much easier for you to just admit you were wrong. I am very happy to argue this over and over again. You have exaggerated or in your words used "hyperbole" to misrepresent weather as climate change.

I wish I put you on ignore like Pro Dee did. You are incapable of forming a logical argument and are everything you despise but just can't see it.