hardtack

Why not? At his best, Garland was an excellent backman. Couple that with his intelligence and I think he could be very well suited to the coaching game.

No different to me than the wasted billions on defence/submarines, border "protection", politicians excessive wages etc etc... all paid for by tax payer dollars.

I will answer that I do care about my children more than I do about the skeptics... as for the rest, I am not invested in/obsessed with this to the degree that you obviously are, so I will not be spending my weekends with your recommended reading lists. As for the "whatever Australia does..." line, I obviously don't see it the same way as you do. Our donations to help the underprivileged in third world countries probably have very little affect in the greater scheme of things, but that does not mean I will stop donating and providing funds to help them... there is only one undeniable truth, and that is that if you do nothing, it is certain that nothing will change.

Ok, my mistake... apologies.

The guy was all Australian last year and was badly affected by a hamstring injury this year (not a knee, so more unfortunate than injury prone). How the hell he could have been considered to be "cruising on his own reputation" is way beyond me.

You mean this? "In Earth’s past, the carbon cycle has changed in response to climate change. Variations in Earth’s orbit alter the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun and leads to a cycle of ice ages and warm periods like Earth’s current climate. (See Milutin Milankovitch.) Ice ages developed when Northern Hemisphere summers cooled and ice built up on land, which in turn slowed the carbon cycle. Meanwhile, a number of factors including cooler temperatures and increased phytoplankton growth may have increased the amount of carbon the ocean took out of the atmosphere. The drop in atmospheric carbon caused additional cooling. Similarly, at the end of the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose dramatically as temperatures warmed." Wrecker seems to like talking up the NASA research, so it's interesting to note that the above is courtesy of NASA... https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

If we are going down the path of what is offensive, I find the use of "zealot" offensive as it is a term borne out of one of my least favourite institutions... religion. I am most certainly not zealous in my beliefs relating to climate change, but I am NOT going to dismiss it out of hand as my children's and their children's (when they eventually have them) futures are what matter to me.

I'm not pushing anything... just offering up information that may or may not be relevant (I just chime in occasionally). If I were obsessive about this, I would be posting masses and masses of charts and references to spurious research by the truckload... then I suppose I could be considered to be pushing a barrow. On the point you raise though, being involved directly in the science, I would say that the above referenced scientists/researchers are probably closer to the coal-front than you or I, so I would have more faith in their view of what might or might not be probable, than I would in yours... just as I have faith in our drafting committee's opinions on what is likely to be probable in 2021 based on the club's projected requirements.

And you're just another denier whose only concern is their hip pocket.

And here's a quote from the article you found so laughable, that references that very report: "We have provided a preview of what is probably going to be said by the IPCC in the [Sixth Assessment Report]," due for release in 2021, said Alexander Nauels, lead author of the report, and a researcher at Melbourne University's Australian-German Climate & Energy Centre." You seem to only place any credibility in the arguments that support your view.

I will contact my brother at some time to get his opinion/knowledge with regards to the Antarctic ice sheets... he was after all, head of the Australian Antarctic operation until about two years ago when he retired.

Well, you've certainly lowered your standards with that comment.

That is not what was claimed at all... it was claimed that there may in fact be less hurricanes, typhoons or whatever you want to call them, but that they will be of far greater intensity... and that, the intensity, is something that has been borne out in recent years. And here is another interesting item in today's press with regards to the problem with coal... http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coal-use-must-pretty-much-be-gone-by-2050-to-curb-sealevel-rise-researchers-say-20171024-gz7mu1.html No doubt the right wing denialists will dismiss/decry this as some kind of a conspiracy to bring down the fossil fuel industry (not that I believe the argument can be tied to either side of the political spectrum... just applying to ProDee's broad brush method to show how silly that approach can be).

But I don't see any mention of Crameri there (I can't access the article)... only Hibberd and Melksham; am I missing something?

And that is?

Of course would have nothing to do with the conditions that made the fires less controllable... it's all down to the power lines.

Yes, it's time to invoke Godwin's Law (as opposed to Goodwin's Law).

Well, perhaps I should have made the comparison with Ben Newton?

Everything is based on "what could happen"... the scientific research describes why it could happen. If you smoke you are not necessarily going to get cancer... it could happen, based on scientific research. So, in the interests of self preservation, most will quit smoking because of the causal link between cigarettes and cancer. Likewise, it makes perfect sense to act on climate change based on scientific research. I suppose NASA has no credibility either in your world... https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Unlike you Wrecker, I do not pretend to be the font of all wisdom with regards to such matters. I do however understand that one of the predictions was that there would be more extreme weather conditions, something that I would say is happening in the here and now. A stat I noticed recently was that apparently the first 6 months of this year are showing this year is likely to be the second hottest on record behind only last year, and 0.94C above the global average for 1950 to 1980. Then there is this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-window-is-closing-to-avoid-dangerous-global-warming/ But no doubt you will claim that these scientists have a vested interest in promoting the case for global warming, because they are at odds with your own belief. Oh, and your arrogance seems to know no bounds... "just humour me..."?

I agree with that summation. I tend to think of Jack as being somewhat similar to Sylvia... definitely not in what he got up to outside the club, but in terms of him giving the impression that he liked the "status" and "fame" associated with being an AFL star, more than the work involved in taking it to the next level. They both demonstrated moments of brilliance, but more often than not, demonstrated moments of mediocrity.

You're comparing apples and pears. Most (apart from you it would seem) agree that climate change IS happening, just not at the predicted rate. You are right, "common sense is to be expected from you"... unfortunately, to this point in time, you are not living up to expectations.

No surprises there; this is exactly what I expected from you Wrecker... you are only concerned with the here and now and have absolutely no interest in what we are leaving for the future generations. As I have said previously (on a number of occasions), for you it is all about the hip pocket... nothing more, nothing less. The only thing that does surprise me where you are concerned, and that is your arrogance... you have shown absolutely nothing to indicate that it is in any way warranted.

There are other means of prevention such as quitting smoking, reducing alchohol intake, avoiding/removing asbestos etc etc... scientists will tell you that these are all ways to prevent cancers, yet their projections on life expectancy (or even the actual contracting of cancer) are very often wrong. In other words, even if the climate change modeling and the resultant projections are wrong, that is not a good reason not to take preventative measures. In both cases, lives are at stake - prevention IS better than cure.

Yes, they're constantly getting those projections wrong (pretty much that same with both of my parents).... so what's the point in taking any preventative measures?