Wrecker45

The dees for the top 8 at $11 is value. Compare us to Collingwood at $1.80 who we beat in the second half of the year and finished close to on the ladder. They are way unders but we are overs based on almost a decade of hopelessness.

For all the MCC/MFC members I emailed PJ about 18 months ago suggesting a MCC visitor pass as a value add because otherwise our memberships are just a donation. He he delivered on it this year. Hopefully it is exclusive to Melbourne I would hate Collingwood to get the same deal down the track.

Do you also agree NOAA should be transparent with their (US tax payer funded) data?

SEN are near bankrupt. Hutchy owns Crock media and will buy SEN for a pittance next year. They will broadcast nationally and lots will change.

How to upset the irrational 101: A small percentage of catholic priests are pedophiles and a minute percentage of pedophiles are catholic priests A small percentage of Muslims are terrorists but a large percentage of terrorists are Muslim.

How does Pro Dee have an agenda? Do you think the climate is static? He has pointed out the climate has changed and will always change. What agenda is that?

Hardtack - do you think it is an inditement on Essendon that they won't provide their records or will you give them the benefit of the doubt?

Choke - NOAA are not advertising on their website or anywhere else that they refuse to disclose their methodology or data in a transparent way, even to congress, despite being publicly funded. I would love to see their response as well.

I don't need a response. The silence is deafening.

So 2015 is the hottest year on record? Announced just before the Paris convention... NOAA came up with this scare. The satellite data that accurately measures the atmospheric global temperature shows no statistical warning for 18 years (and 9 months). Of course if there is no atmospheric warming there can be no global warming. (PM me if you don't understand the basic physics) But NOAA has come up with a "new" formula that ignores the accurate and unaltered atmosphere figures, relies on temperature stations on the ground, that are subject to the moving of weather stations, increased and decreased concrete surroundings, sample ocean scooping's, from ocean liners and homogenization of data. And of course nobody is privy to how the data is manipulated. Just so we are clear: -Satellite data uses infrared technology across the atmosphere and is entirely accurate - NOAA's "new" global temperature findings use man made weather stations and a raft of other inaccurate temperature gages. Then they "adjust" them and then they come up with the hottest year on record, just in time for the Paris convention. Now NOAA is in a world of hurt because congress has requested the raw data, adjusted data and method of manipulation of data that they used to claim the hottest year on record. But of course NOAA wont release it, at least this side of the Paris convention. Are there any on here that argue Essendon should be hit with the full force of the law for not providing their body of evidence on allegedly drugging 40 players but think it is fine that that NOAA wont supply their data that effects the world policy and could potentially leave millions in poverty?

Tough footballers win premierships. The best teams of the modern era Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn have all had a staple of tough footballers. Barassi, Whitten & Matthews are widely regarded as the best to have played the game do you notice a pattern? Abblett senior went toe to toe with Lester Ellis and gave as good as he got. It is not rocket science.

I like Bernie Vince off HBF. Hadn't thought of that. Some of the stopping roles he played through the middle this year whilst still getting his own ball would make him perfect off half back flank. Plus his laser like penetrating kick would be a weapon for us setting up the play. Plus it probably prolongs his career being out of the crash and bash in the middle. Alot to like.

Get Daisy in the leadership group. In all seriousness she is a marketing weapon and none counts towards our player marketing salary cap. Womens football is the fastest growing sport in the country and we are at the forefront of it. With the best player and personality in some kind of ambassador role at the club. It feels strange to be leading strategic thinking off the field. Both in understanding the new points system in the draft and then utilizing it to our advantage and at the same time to have the face of womens football decked out in red and blue, including our sponsors, at every opportunity.

If believing in freedom of speech is stupid then guilty as charged.

Choke - Thanks for providing links. Some posters on this site seem incapable of doing so. The reason I asked p-man to reference the 95% argument he put forward was not to argue about semantics. It is and was about who we choose to believe. P-man only chooses to believe scientists who favour the alarmist global warming view that he does. Anything that doesn't fit his narrative, he rules out because it doesn't fit within his "picking". P-man says 95% agree with something (still not sure think it might be the vibe) to justify his bias. On the first link it surprises me that NASA, the world's supposed leading (and often pioneering) scientific body would have to link to other lesser renowned bodies to form a consensus (science is not about a vote). Why don't NASA have evidence? The science is settled after all... I clicked on the top link from NASA (I'm not going to read them all), the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the findings are from 2006, well before the hiatus was recognized and statistically significant. Let me know if you want me to read the full statement from any of the others and I will comment back. Choose the best one. The second link is to a study that had been widely debunked. Thanks again for providing links.

I would but I'm not sure what to type in to check it. What do the 95% of peers believe in and why wont you just provide a link?

Damn those wanting freedom of speech and particularity those with different views.

You do know how to provide links. Now just for the 95% of peers...

Because I haven't been slain for enraging a crazy bunch of Islamists? Or is it because you don't get the whole freedom of speech thing and believe your right to be offended outweighs my right to speech?

I'm sorry if the massacre of 200 people is a real world problem and I state the obvious. Je suis Charlie. I hope you are as quick to jump on the people who blame climate change for the deaths of people after our next inevitable bushfire.

95% of their peers? Are we talking sea level rises, polar bear extincting, upper atmosphere warming or just the vibe? I back up my statements with links. I'm guessing you will just say you can't be bothered arguing with me. Again...

I'm intrigued with your comment on the caliber of individual I am aligned with? If it is an ex-demonlander who no longer posts here I am happy to PM you (send me a PM). I know what happened but don't know the accused personally. Otherwise I am not sure what you are talking about. Anytime I am writing about "alarmists" it is in relation to climate change and you will need to explain to me why that is in horrible taste.

How do you pick one scientists findings over another? I'm guessing the ones that fit your narrative or the ones on the ABC that also fit your narrative.

Ok I have read the article now and it is 30 seconds of my life I will never get back. Is that the quality of link I can expect from the alarmists on this site? When I post links to satellite data showing no statistic warming I get a link back to some bloke I have never heard of bringing a snowball into the American senate?

So do you have scientific credentials in climate change? If not by your own reasoning you shouldn't have an opinion on it. I'll admit I haven't read your link unlike some of the links I have previously provided that you commented on without even reading.