Jara

Proud of the club. I'm going to upgrade my membership. And BTW, what's with all these people rabbiting on about "virtue signalling"? I never even heard the phrase until there past couple of years - now Andrew Bolt says it every time he opens his mouth (and his lackeys follow suite). I don't get it. Are they saying that, from now on, it's impossible to do anything for an honourable motive? That all you're doing is "virtue-signallng" - i.e., I presume, telling the world how good you are? Weird.

oh - right - fair enough - thanks for letting me know

I'd be grateful if somebody could list a link here as well - getting excited.

Maybe not, but it's a sign of something. Clearly a lot of others here feel the same way. We can only respect the guy when he's achieved something. So far, there's been nothing. I thought today's was a very wooden coaching performance.

No forward structure. Not counting off Goodwin just yet, but he's done nothing to earn my respect thus far.

No visits here for a few days now. Isn't it funny how we forget about all our little political arguments when the real stuff gets going?

OMG, is that true? He took out your wisdom teeth without anaesthetic? Where was this? Kokoda in 1942?

Had a look at it - yeah, you're right - it's debatable, at best. I trust Mr Hersh. I should add that my views on Assad don't just come from the Herald Sun - I do some volunteer work with Syrian refugees - my views are shaped largely by what they tell me. They're not fans, to put it mildly. Homicidal maniac is the general opinion.

Not bad - I'll pay that - I used to chew my nails when I was a kid, so I suppose I have eaten bits of people - well, one person :-(

Hmmm - never seen the film, wasn't sure what it is, so I looked it up. First reading, it's soy and lentils, so yes, I have that often. On closer reading, it's people. I've eaten lots of things in my life, but, as far as I know, not them.

It's bloody complicated, I'll give you that. I remember reading this most book on climate a few years ago - sorry, forgotten the name, but it was reputable - , and it pointed out that we've been living in a gradually warming climate for the past 15,000 years - the period in which civilisation has arisen - and that a new Ice Age was overdue. Throw anthropogenic global warming into the mix and god knows what we're going to get. One thing though - those natural changes seemed to be much slower, and longer lasting. The recent global warming is happening much more rapidly. And, given that we've built up a society totally dependant on stability and technology, we could be in real trouble - particularly since we seem hell-bent on overpopulating it. My god, can you imagine Australia with 50 million people? Melbourne with - what are they aiming for? 7, 10 million? All the richest farming land filled up with brick-venereal estates? Traffic permanently jammed? No industry left, immigration the only sector of the economy still working? Country turning into a giant Ponzi scheme - it'll probably collapse about the time I hit the old folks' home and need it. And we still won't have won an effin premiership. Excuse early morning rant - too much coffee.

The scientists don't regard themselves as infallible. That's not how it works. They're all just theories that are regarded as the best we've got until somebody comes along and disproves them. To regard that as "religion" is moving out into fruitcake territory.

A majority of them do - see the list of organisations I quoted above.. And if you can't tell the difference between religion and science, well...I'm a bit lost for words, really. It's so obvious. One is based on evidence, the other is based on superstition.

They may want him gone because he's an egocentric jerk who's thus far achieved nothing (although I was pleased when he bombed Assad - pity he didn't get the man himself). See Nutbean's excellent post above: just as many jobs created in the Obama era as in the Trump (if that's what you're referring to). These things happen for all sorts of reasons, most of them not connected to who's in the White House. Not sure what else Trump's done: grabbed a few [censored]? Drained the - ahem - swamp? My god, if you fell for the Reaganite method-acting con, jeez... no wonder you're impressed by Trump.

Good post, Wise. If Trump really does persuade N. Korea to get rid of their nuclear weapons, I'll be the first to praise him (and Moon) for it. I doubt whether he will, though. The Kims done this several times before: say they'll disarm, stall for time, get some sort of benefit, then get right back to it. The real problems are China, which continues to support them, and the US, which thinks it has a divine right to stick its bib in wherever it feels like it.

Fantastic posts, Choke and Nut. Trump got to where he is because he appeals to stupid, insecure people, and there are an awful lot of those in America.

Bit rude to say I'm 'banging on' about them, but whatever. Eye of the beholder and all that. I only chose them because they were one of the first names on the long list of internationally respected scientific organisations concerned about global warming. I was hoping to advance our debate beyond all that "BOM-conspiracy" crap. Here's a position statement from their website, explaining why what you downplay as 'normal chemical stuff' is important : The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Chemistry is at the heart of understanding the climate system and integral to addressing the development and deployment of new emission reduction technologies and clean energy alternatives. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity. Wen you say they are just "sticking fat with the general scientific community", I'm glad to see you're accepting that the general scientific community understands that global warming is real and man-made.

Sure, but I'm not basing my opinions upon said mammalogist. In my last post, I was basing my opinion on the very clearly-stated position of the American Chemical Society, the largest and most respected society of chemistry professionals in the world. Have a look at their website: they are clearly concerned about global warming, and recognise that an understanding of the chemistry involved is essential if we are to combat it.

You're probably right - each to his own, I suppose, and I didn't like the guy who played Will (Joseph Fiennes, wasn't it?) but I thought Gwyneth was a bit of a sweetie. What I liked about it (and the reason I suggested my kids see it when they were doing Shakespeare at school) was its depiction of Elizabethan theatre and its place in society. I thought Saving Private Ryan was also a brilliant film, if a little Yankee-gung-ho, but I had to shut my eyes for the opening scenes.

Sorry if I've been boring you, but you'll have to explain it one more time. I don't get what you're saying. You say you are interested in the "content" the organisation - let's say, for argument's sake, the American Chemical Society - produces. What's that supposed to mean? How do you manifest that interest? Do you actually read the many peer-reviewed journal articles on global warming they publish? Do you have any scientific basis at all for your belief that they are all somehow "wrong", or do you get all the information you want from your IPA entomologist?

Wrecker - you've lost me here. Nut is simply saying is that if we heed what the scientists tell us and reduce our carbon emissions, the worst that can happen is that we reduce the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. Whereas if we follow your advice and do nothing, we are risking global catastrophe. How is is that religious?

Each to their own, I suppose - Shakespeare in Love and The Artist are two of my favourite films (my kids say I need to see more films)

For an entire word.

So the American Chemical Society, to choose one of many internationally respected organisations, is just "praying on fear" (whatever that means)? I'd say they're looking at the science.

Not really, but I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think we do a lot, or that we do absolutely nothing?