hardtack

Yes, I'm sure there are many differing views as to how much man is contributing to the warming of the planet. Of course we can't know how they thought individually, but I would say that with the 1.5 degree post-industrial revolution increase in temperatures coupled with the fact that the rate of increase has accelerated exponentially since 1975, it would be fair to assume that the majority believe man is a major influence. And as for grants, we could see that your friend Lindzen accepted moneys from the pro fossil fuel side, so yes, you are probably right, there is probably a bit of that going on on both sides of the fence. I seem to recall there were plenty of medical "experts" who supported the tobacco lobby in their assertions that there was no causal link between smoking tobacco and cancer... now we have the same thing happening with the link between shrinking polar ice caps, record temperatures etc etc.

On the first point, I follow no particular scientist's beliefs on global warming... however (and this relates to the second point as well), I think I am far more likely to be leaning towards the opinion of roughly 94% of the world's (polled) climate and earth scientists, than the 6% who prefer to fly in the face of popular informed opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change You can accuse me of having the blinkers on (pot, kettle, black), but so far all you have done is convince me that you simply enjoy being contrary - you like to stand out from the crowd because it gets you more attention. Sorry, but where my kids' future is concerned, I couldn't care less about my hip pocket... and that seems to be your main objection to this whole thing.

I am responding to your statement: "The following is from one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. Flannery even rates him." Yes, Flannery did rate him, didn't he... to the right of Bolt and Genghis Khan. From the articles at the links I provided above, it would seem that he is not as highly regarded in the scientific world as you might like to think either. I would not be putting as much faith in what he has to say as you seem to.

And then there is this (lifted from his Wiki page): According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited" according to the Times article. Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." In the same interview, Dr. Lindzen said, "You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science." He further explained: "If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something." He doesn't seem to have much confidence when it comes to his own "climate science". And of course, he has never had the fossil fuel interests in his pocket... well, maybe just occasionally: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding And didn't Myth Ben Her argue pretty strongly against Carbon Dioxide being a pollutant (I assume that being a greenhouse gas qualifies it as being a pollutant)... looking at the quote above, it would appear that our BH may be a little "nutty" according to one of his/her heroes in Lindzen. BH: "Is it your contention that carbon dioxide is a pollutant ? It isn't." Dr RL: "...agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty."

And then of course there is this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/weekly-standard-lindzen-puff-piece.html

No, I made this exception just for you... you should be flattered.

It got what it deserved... it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion that was talking place... and to tell the truth, I am not interested in what the academic left think about anything.

I think it's what they call a "strawman". Anyway, here's a bit more to feed Myth Ben Her'th great warmist conspiracy theory: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/chilly-warning-from-scientists-on-impact-of-antarctica-changes-20140106-30dmr.html

Agree Matchsy

Nonsense... you are right wing conservative

Oh, you mean THIS Larry Bell? You would rather do nothing because you are, in essence, a conspiracy theorist who believes that everything the left side of politics does, is designed to bring down the right side of politics and go completely against the interests of the "common" people. You love the likes of Bell, Bolt and no doubt Alex Jones, because they feed your sense of paranoia and hatred of anything slightly left of centre. One difference between warmists and your denialsts... warmists show some concern for the future (even if it is not always well considered), while you denialists are simply interested in your own welfare and your own wallets and couldn't give a toss about what may come after you're dust and maggots.

I might be wrong, but I was sure that he had started performing duties for the MFC (for example, the visit to see Hogan) before he officially kicked off his contracted period with the club. Can anyone verify (or refute) this? If it is the case, then I can see no reason why the club should begrudge him this holiday. And thanks for the great reports BB and BRFE.

Sorry, that was my poor wording... I probably should have said "no noticeable impact"... any reduction in carbon emissions will have an impact, maybe just not a noticeable impact until it happens on a larger scale. I don't know whether the carbon tax scheme was going to help or not, but something must be done to reduce emissions... too many people (and this is not directed at you) seem to consider the hip pocket to be more important than what we leave behind for our kids.... and that is not merely some emotionally fraught argument; check that link I put up earlier to NASA'\s Goddard Institute research where it states that: "Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade". That is pretty sobering stuff as far as I am concerned. And just out of interest... where are the savings we should be seeing with the dismantling of the Carbon Tax scheme? Thus far I have seen no reductions at all in any of my bills or in the costs related to any purchases I make.

I am not talking about us taking a leading role... just about us doing something. As I said in my first post... I have the choice of putting my rubbish in a bin, knowing full well it will probably have no impact on the reduction of littering, or I can take the defeatist route and drop it on the ground just because no-one else seems to care about a tidy environment... I know which option I would take... what would you do?

Sometimes it's not the contribution that matters, it's that fact that change has to start somewhere... it's the fact that if we don't do anything and no one else does anything, then things can only get worse... that is the point I was making.

Wrecker45, you might want to look at this (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php)... NASA scientists (Goddard Institute) tend to look at things over a slightly broader scale than what the temperature has been doing for the past 17 years. But hey, what would NASA know eh?

Yes, and why should I dump my empty sandwich wrapper in that bin? My contribution towards keeping Australia clean will have little to no effect so I guess I may as well just chuck it in the gutter along with everybody else.

Interesting...

I suppose in effect that makes it "artificial dissemination"?

Well, I hope our players are watching it religiously.

Loved it...particularly the fact that his $100 Jetstar voucher was only redeemable on future Jetstar services. Airlines are the pits...I rate them almost on a par with the banks.

Yes, but surely they should have stated what it was that was going to be injected... in which case it is the responsibility of the player to ensure he's not getting injected with anything illegal under ASADA/WADA rulings. And why a player wouldn't want to check after being asked to sign a consent form is beyond me.

You mean like here, or here?

Ok, I'll accept what you define as being the requirements of a good servant and repeat that I wasn't particularly disappointed when he left. I can't think of one other player on our list at that time that could be compared to Jones...he was more the exception that proved the rule where dedication and work ethic at the MFC were concerned. It would have been interesting to see what Roos could have got out of Col, as along with Watts, he was a required player when Roos was trying to get him to remain at the club. As for the use of the word "hero", I think it's very appropriate in many cases on these forums... or are you just disappointed I'm not using prefixing it with the word "keyboard"?

Here we go... because we get sick of the heroes on here continually putting the boot into former (and current) players, we must feel some sort of emotional attachment, or are accepting of mediocrity??? Where have we stated that Col leaving was a bad thing? I am just sick and tired of the critics on here who, as soon as one hero sticks the boot in, follow blindly like sheep. As TheoX correctly stated, Col was a good servant of the club who was inconsistent... that is a very accurate statement, so why should he be rubbished for it?