Wrecker45

We used pick 34 on Max Gawn who had done his ACL the previous season. He was untried at AFL level and a massive unit which could only put extra pressure on his knees. Sometimes you need to take educated risks.

Of course you don't mind Turnbull. I wouldn't mind if Kennett or Costello lead Labor or the the Greens.

Enough time has passed to say he is no Rudd. Abbott sits on the back bench and makes international speeches as former PM about border protection. He is widely acclaimed for it; but it is in contract to Turnbull (at least in language). Abbott is probably delusional enough to think he will get back in. He wont. Rudd undermined Gillard with every journalist that would listen to him. Abbott states his principals publicly as a backbencher, Rudd just undermined Gillard and tried to kill her. Politics is a grubby game but comparing Abbott to Rudd now is just silly.

I'm happy to reference any of the satellite data. I'm not sure what NOA data Andrew Bolt is showing that you refer to but I'm guessing NOA produce it not him.

I love nothing more than the do nothing argument. Tony Abbott had a plan (direct action) to plant more trees. Of course the greens didn't like more trees being planted because they are about hurting corporations not helping the planet. Labor hated it because there is no tree planting union. So instead of helping the environment we get this great big campaign to tax carbon dioxide, which every human expels, and all the banks and traders will profit. But at least we are doing something right?

Jara - Climate science or scientists don't study the actual science. No one field of specialists can. It is too complex. Physicists, statisticians, engineers, geologists all contribute. The problem is the IPCC that pays them all for their research has a contention that CO2 is trapping heat and causing unprecedented warming. Of course all real world data contradicts it and all evidence demonstrates no statistical warming (let alone unprecedented). I have a cousin on Mount Bulla that told me 10 years ago he would be out of a job because it wont snow anymore. The CSIRO at the time agreed with him. Funny it it still snowing and he still has a job.

LOL. Which part are you laughing at? Linking to a whole article as some kind of proof is a lower form of wit than sarcasm.

Sorry to post on this thread about mediocre players who have consistently destroyed Melbourne over the years but Dr John Dee shut my original thread down due to some perceived overlap. Perhaps years of watching Melbourne's mediocracy have blurred his vision. David Hale and Chance Bateman were the original players I suggested as mediocre players who destroyed Melbourne but there are plenty of others. Kent Kingsley always seemed to do well against us as well. Back to the original topic of Greats of the Game tearing us up and I can't go past Mitchell, Carey, Ablett (snr & jnr).

Just read a thread about champion players who killed Melbourne. I was (un)lucky enough to see Ablett, Carey, Dunstall etc.. but it got me thinking about the average players who always seem to play well against us. The worst for mine are Hale (north then hawks) Chance Batemen Whenever we played them they just tore us apart. Any others?

Did Corey McKernan kick a ridiculous amount of goals from outside 50 that night as well? If he did I was there.

Just like Sylvia... except: He has never had off field trouble He is lauded by the coaches He has performed admirably season after season I've never heard anybody say he is a wasted talent He hasn't been traded to another club with "better development" that could fix him up He hasn't been delisted

Great thread P-man. I can never understand the hate for Garland. An absolute warrior in a dark period for the MFC. He is a pure kick of the footy despite what some on here think. His decision making hasn't been flash every single time but nor would Judd's or Ablett's playing in our backline over that period. You are in a pressure cooker with limited mates. Everyone knows he plays on the fastest smalls and strongest talls, his versatility is unquestionable. Loves the MFC and has said a premiership at another club would mean nothing too him. He hasn't been fit for years. Watch out this year when he does a pre-season (he did last year but finished half a lap behind everyone else, even in the 400m's). Roos will rotate him through the midfield more often, he (Roos) loves the bigger bodied players.

Why don't you address the facts instead of resorting to sarcasm? Satellite data shows no warming for 18 years but your sarcasm and the manipulated data are showing plenty of heat.

Of course you can argue against the irrational. The greater argument will always win. Put it out there and let the people decide for themselves. The problem is you don't want a rational argument because the satellite data conclusively proves there has been no warming for 18 years, despite a massive spike in CO2. But of course you can't be bothered...

I don't need to beat others into submission because the facts are on my side. Perhaps you should look at the Jack Watts, Cale Morton or Jimmy Toumpas threads for obsessive writers.

Keep wearing that tin foil hat until you can explain to me why there is no statistical warming in the atmosphere for the last 18 years.

Thanks Grapeviney. So because we are not in permanent drought can we say the computer models are wrong? Do you think the ABC will correct him? What does the tax payer funded ABC fact checking unit do?

Are you one of the uneducated DC posted about previously? Read only fairfax and watch the abc?

If i were irrational you would be able to argue against what I have written. The fact is you can't.

Hardtack - Tell me what year the science was settled and I will give you a list of dud predictions since. Science is settled hahaha...

There is no desperate need to be "right". You will notice Bing181 correctly called me out for saying the satellite data measures temperature. Which it doesn't. I have highlighted the fact I was incorrect. The obsessed comment also intrigues me. Can anybody contribute to a (this) thread, that has a contrary opinion to yourself, without being labelled obsessive?

Choke - that was me and I don't believe it can be questioned that sattelites data is more reliable. The weather stations on the ground are " homogenised" the sattelite data is pure.

What do you think about Essendon? Whilst they won't produce the records of what they have injected their players I will believe it's a massive conspiracy. No different for any scientific body who won't transparently release the data behind their findings. Do you believe 2015 is the hottest year on record based on NOAA's investigation?

Not at all. I believe the climate has changed previously and will always change going forward. I just don't have the delusional view that man controls the climate. What temperature forecast reduction are they hoping Kyoto 2 will deliver again? i'll add it to the list of all the other dud predictions.

Kudos to you. By far the most intelligent post from a believer in climate change I have seen on demonland, The sattelites measure radiance not temperature. But they are directly related. And the point still stands. No increase in radiance wavelength bands in the atmosphere means there can be no global warming. Do you think it appropriate that NOAA wont release their raw data, then manipulated data showing the hottest year ever and method for achieving it?