The world of Rugby League.

rleague.com

Bulldogs Debate Page

annav3

annav3

there are so many whispers that we are close to signing a marquee player but I am having doubts and it is just all talk. Perhaps we should just go for Inu at fullback and have Morris and Lafai centres...Hoffman seems settled in brisbane I don't really want to recruit the guy 
annav3

annav3

there are so many whispers that we are close to signing a marquee player but I am having doubts and it is just all talk. Perhaps we should just go for Inu at fullback and have Morris and Lafai centres...Hoffman seems settled in brisbane I don't really want to recruit the guy 
annav3

annav3

there are so many whispers that we are close to signing a marquee player but I am having doubts and it is just all talk. Perhaps we should just go for Inu at fullback and have Morris and Lafai centres...Hoffman seems settled in brisbane I don't really want to recruit the guy 
ToddH

ToddH

Unless we jag a big name recruit we are better off giving inu the off season to prepare for the role and move on. We need to do so many things better next year I hope des is not blaming the whole season on barba and therefore feel that a new fullback will solve our issues. We need improvement in loads of areas. 
NathanB

NathanB

I think halfback is a bigger problem for us than fullback. Either way, we're definitely going to need some star power before we truly contend again. 
IanC

IanC

Anna I would love it if you lefties stayed here and left the BCP to the less gullible. But it wont happen. NathanB is that really you in the picture? I do hope so. 
annav3

annav3

I am concerned about the depth in the club, we have a lot of youngsters but I don't think they are ready to step up at NRL level if an injury were to happen. 
hounddog

hounddog

Personally I would be raiding the Panthers Holden Cup side, there a some great players in that team. I think the hooker is a great player, he could probably force Ennis out of our side.
From our Holden cup I think MBye is the best prospect, Templeman, FukoFuka and Perret JNR.
We are probably looking at graduating 2-3 juniors each year which we have been doing.
But Sherwin was the last quality half-back we produced. Hopefully, Cox is the next one but as ToddH said above there are lots of issues that need fixing. 
NathanB

NathanB

No, that is Max Fischer. 
hounddog

hounddog

Having said that I think the Panthers have got most of the juniors locked up. I'm expecting them to make the semi's next year. I hope we do, I'm still expecting an improvement on this year .... not that that would be too hard to achieve. 
joeb

joeb

Ian, he is one and the same 
NathanB

NathanB

That is not me in the picture. I wish it was. Max Fischer is a legend! 
IanC

IanC

Is he the guy from Bored to Death? 
annav3

annav3

LOL how funny is this


Greg Hunt uses Wikipedia research to dismiss links between climate change and bushfires


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html#ixzz2iatrWuew 
annav3

annav3

O'Farrell govt looking after rich developers


Unwanted developments could be rammed through in suburbs across Sydney, despite government claims that new planning laws will return powers to communities, critics say.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/concern-over-new-bill-that-streamlines-development-20131022-2vz8e.html#ixzz2iauUBluS 
Balso

Balso

The Interview with the BBC was excruciating and does not enhance our reputation in any sort of a way but the fact remains that in my mind Abbott has a mandate to get rid of the tax . Real shame but that is reality .
In fact the Greens have a lot to answer for in this regard because several years ago they had the opportunity to at least get some legislation up but they reneged on the Labor Party and the moment was lost . 
Zef.

Zef.

Ian, Your Minchin Theory seems to have been... I was gonna say "deleted" but maybe you didn't post it in the first place ot it fell off the page or something?

Anyway, the quoted and referred to Minchin Theory of yours, I can't find it.

If you would re-post, I surely would enjoy reading it. 
IanC

IanC

Balso mentioned it Zef I didn't. Personally i have ever heard of it but if it is as Balso described then it is pretty much what I believe and have done for a very long time. 
Zef.

Zef.

Didn't you post something that Balso said you stole from Nick Minchin and then you said no he stole it from me?

That's the post I'm interested in reading. 
IanC

IanC

Yes I did but it was not meant to be taken literally. It just meant his ideas, as espoused by Balso in his post, were held by me ages ago. I have never read anything written by Nick Minchin and probably never will. The central tenet of the Greens political party is very close to the Communist manifesto. Most of the more active Greens were formally members of the Communist party either in the mainstream or at University. 
Balso

Balso

I get where you are coming from Ian . I never thought of the Greens in that way and still don't but I can't say you are wrong about some Greens being former Communists because I don't actually know . I always figured the whole Green thing was tree hugging first and foremost not wrecking the economy .
What irks me about the Greens is that Rudd and Turnbull had a shot at bipartisan carbon pricing
and the Greens scuppered the deal because it didn't go far enough for their liking .
The upshot of this was Abbott got the ball and ran with it , beat Turnbull by a solitary vote and the rest is history .
It is amazing how history can turn on such a small pivot and bring us to where we are now .
It could be argued that Abbott had a handle on the zeitgest more than the other two which has brought him the ultimate prize . 
NathanB

NathanB

The Greens and other environmentalists are not the issue. Yes, they are now relevant because of Climate Change (which makes a lot of people bitter and twisted and is the real reason there is so many willing to park their brains at the door and continue to spout nonsense), but they are certainly not driving the issue. It is being driven by the science. And will continue to be driven by the science. If you want to bring down the theory, you will have to use science. Which is inconvenient, of course, because the vast majority of those opposing it wouldn't know the difference between a beaker and a beetroot. 
joeb

joeb

Good morning Max Fischer 
joeb

joeb

Climate change: this is not science – it’s mumbo jumbo

By Nigel Lawson
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10340408/Climate-change-this-is-not-science-its-mumbo-jumbo.html

On Friday, the UN published its landmark report into climate change, which claimed with “95 per cent” certainty that global warming is man-made.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, compiled by 259 leading scientists, warned that without “substantial and sustained reductions” of greenhouse gas emissions, the world will experience more extreme weather.

However, critics have questioned the scientists’ use of computer forecasting, which, they say, has produced fatalistic scenarios that fail to take into account fully that atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the past 15 years.

Here, former chancellor Lord Lawson, now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank, gives his verdict on the report.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which published on Friday the first instalment of its latest report, is a deeply discredited organisation. Presenting itself as the voice of science on this important issue, it is a politically motivated pressure group that brings the good name of science into disrepute.

Its previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded that there were “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process”, and that “significant improvements” were needed. It also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence”.

Since then, little seems to have changed, and the latest report is flawed like its predecessor.

Perhaps this is not so surprising. A detailed examination of the 2007 report found that two thirds of its chapters included among its authors people with links to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and there were many others with links to other 'green’ activist groups, such as Greenpeace.

In passing, it is worth observing that what these so-called green groups, and far too many of the commentators who follow them, wrongly describe as 'pollution’ is, in fact, the ultimate in green: namely, carbon dioxide – a colourless and odourless gas, which promotes plant life and vegetation of all kinds; indeed, they could not survive without it. It is an established scientific fact that, over the past 20 years, the earth has become greener, largely thanks to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Be that as it may, as long ago as 2009, the IPCC chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri – who is a railway engineer and economist by training, not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist – predicted that “when the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say: 'My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’” This was well before the scientific investigation on which the latest report is allegedly based had even begun. So much for the scientific method.

There is, however, one uncomfortable fact that the new report has been – very reluctantly – obliged to come to terms with. That is that global warming appears to have ceased: there has been no increase in officially recorded global mean temperature for the past 15 years. This is brushed aside as a temporary blip, and they suggest that the warming may still have happened, but instead of happening on the Earth’s surface it may have occurred for the time being in the (very cold) ocean depths – of which, incidentally, there is no serious empirical evidence.

A growing number of climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that at least part of the answer is that the so-called climate sensitivity of carbon – the amount of warming that might be expected from a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (caused by the use of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas) – is significantly less than was previously assumed to be the case.

It is no doubt a grudging acceptance of this that has led the new report to suggest that the global warming we can expect by the end of this century is probably rather less than the IPCC had previously predicted: perhaps some 2.7F (1.5C). What they have not done, however, is to accept that the computer models on which they base all their prognostications have been found to be misleading. These models all predicted an acceleration in the warming trend throughout the 21st century, as global carbon dioxide emissions rose apace. In fact, there has been a standstill.

The true scientific method is founded on empirical observation. When a theory – whether embedded in a computer program or not – produces predictions that are falsified by subsequent observation, then the theory, and the computer models which enshrine it, have to be rethought.

Not for the IPCC, however, which has sought to obscure this fundamental issue by claiming that, whereas in 2007 it was 90 per cent sure that most of the (very slight) global warming recorded since the Fifties was due to man-made carbon emissions, it is now 95 per cent sure.

This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo. Neither the 90 per cent nor the 95 per cent have any objective scientific basis: they are simply numbers plucked from the air for the benefit of credulous politicians and journalists.

They have thrown dust in the eyes of the media in other ways, too. Among them is the shift from talking about global warming, as a result of the generally accepted greenhouse effect, to 'climate change’ or 'climate disruption’. Gullible journalists (who are particularly prevalent within the BBC) have been impressed, for example, by being told now that much of Europe, and in particular the UK, is likely to become not warmer but colder, as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions interfering with the Gulf Stream.

There is nothing new about this canard, which has been touted for the past 10 years or so. Indeed, I refer to it explicitly in my book on global warming, An Appeal to Reason, which first came out five years ago. In fact, there has been no disruption whatever of the Gulf Stream, nor is it at all likely that there could be. As the eminent oceanographer Prof Karl Wunsch has observed, the Gulf Stream is largely a wind-driven phenomenon, and thus “as long as the sun heats the Earth and the Earth spins, so that we have winds, there will be a Gulf Stream”.

So what is the truth of the matter, and what do we need to do about it?

The truth is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is indeed steadily increasing, as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, particularly in the faster-growing countries of the developing world, notably China. And it is also a scientific fact that, other things being equal, this will make the world a warmer place. But there are two major unresolved scientific issues: first, are other things equal?, and second, even if they are, how much warmer will our planet become? There is no scientific basis whatever for talking about 'catastrophic climate change’ – and it is generally agreed that if the global temperature standstill soon comes to an end and the world is, as the IPCC is now suggesting might well be the case, 1.5ºC warmer by the end of the century, that would be a thoroughly good thing: beneficial to global food production and global health alike.

So what we should do about it – if indeed, there is anything at all we need to do – is to adapt to any changes that may, in the far future, occur. That means using all the technological resources open to mankind – which will ineluctably be far greater by the end of this century than those we possess today – to reduce any harms that might arise from warming, while taking advantage of all the great benefits that warming will bring.

What we should emphatically not do is what Dr Pachauri, Lord Stern and that gang are calling for and decarbonise the global economy by phasing out fossil fuels.

Before the industrial revolution mankind relied for its energy on beasts of burden and wind power. The industrial revolution, and the enormous increase in prosperity it brought with it, was possible only because the West abandoned wind power and embraced fossil fuels. We are now – unbelievably – being told that we must abandon relatively cheap and highly reliable fossil fuels, and move back to wind power, which is both unreliable and hugely costly.

This is clearly an economic nonsense, which would condemn us to a wholly unnecessary fall in living standards.

But what moves me most is what this would mean for the developing world. For them, abandoning the cheapest available form of energy and thus seriously abandoning the path of economic growth and rising prosperity on which, at long last, most of the developing world is now embarked, would mean condemning hundreds of millions of their people to unnecessary poverty, destitution, preventable disease, and premature death.

All in the name of seeking to ensure that distant generations, in future centuries, might be (there is no certainty) slightly better off than would otherwise be the case.

Not to beat about the bush, it is morally outrageous. It is just as well that the world is unlikely to take the slightest notice of the new IPCC report.
 
joeb

joeb

Climate change 'scientists’ are just another pressure group
The IPCC and its reports have been shaped by a close-knit group of scientists, all dedicated to the cause

Last weekend, something very odd happened. On Friday we were told that in Stockholm the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) had published a report saying that it was now “extremely likely” that the world faces disastrous man-made climate change. But this was merely a “summary” for politicians and the media of a scientific report that was not published until three days later.

We then learnt that this “Summary for Policymakers” had been argued over for days and sleepless nights by hundreds of politicians, officials and scientists, but, weirdly, that the scientific report it supposedly summarised had subsequently been amended to bring it into line with the summary. One obvious change from previous drafts was the marked downplaying of any reference to how, in recent years, global temperatures have so notably failed to rise as the IPCC’s computer models predicted.

This was an uncanny replay of the first scandal to hit the IPCC back in 1996, when again the “summary” thrashed over by politicians and a few key scientists was made more alarming than the report proper by inserting a claim that there was now “a discernible human influence” on the world’s climate.

Scientists who had approved the report protested that there was nothing in their text to justify this. But, to their amazement, they discovered that their agreed version had been amended to include this very phrase, citing as its authority two papers not yet published by Ben Santer, an American scientist who had also played a key part in drafting the summary.

All this, and the revelation that Santer had deleted 15 passages casting doubt on man-made warming from the agreed text, famously prompted Prof Frederick Seitz, a revered former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to protest that never in 60 years as a scientist had he “witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process”. Last weekend Dr Santer was again playing a part in the events that led to a virtual repeat of what happened in 1995.

Some years back, when I was researching a detailed history of the alarm over global warming, few things surprised me more than to discover just how wildly misleading was the picture given to the world of the IPCC as a genuinely scientific body, dispassionately assessing current knowledge of all the factors shaping our climate. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by a small group of scientists who were already wholly convinced that rising CO2 levels were the prime factor in causing global temperatures to rise. They were led by Prof Bert Bolin, appointed as the IPCC’s first chairman, and Dr John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office, who, for 14 years, remained head of its key Working Group 1, responsible for reporting on climate science.

Since then the IPCC and its five major reports have essentially been shaped by a surprisingly small, close-knit group of scientists, all similarly dedicated to the cause. They have been determined not just to assemble all the evidence they could find to support their theory, however dubious it might be (as in the case of that notorious “hockey stick” graph); but, as we saw from the Climategate emails, to deride or ignore any that contradicted it.

In years to come this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of “science” can be used to promote a particular belief system, in this case with the aid of those skewed computer models that can be seen ever more clearly not to accord with the observed evidence.

All this would not be so serious if the IPCC had not been so successfully sold to the world as an objective scientific body rather than as just a political pressure group, because this has taken in no one more damagingly than all those credulous politicians who use the IPCC’s bogus prestige to justify landing us with some of the most disastrously misconceived policies the world has ever seen.

Ukip’s bizarre silence on 'Bongo Land’ ballyhoo

Back in August, when that hapless — now former — Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom was in the news for complaining about how we waste money sending aid to “Bongo Bongo Land”, I suggested that he must have been thinking of that satirical Forties hit in which Danny Kaye sang “bingo, bango, bongo, I don’t want to leave the Congo”. Dead on cue, we now have an excoriating report from the EU’s Court of Auditors finding that more than half of the £1.9 billion the EU sent in aid to the Congo between 2003 and 2011 was wasted. Its main achievement seems to have been to increase MPs’ wages in one of the poorest and most ill-governed countries in the world by 800 per cent, so that politicians’ pay now accounts for 11 per cent of the national budget. The report paints a terrifying picture of how the European Commission proved atrociously incompetent in almost every respect, all of which should have been meat and drink to Ukip. But they seem to have remained strangely silent. The only effect of that row over Outer Bongolia, it seems, has been to shut them up on a subject that, if addressed in a rather more grown-up fashion, might have had more serious impact.
 

Recent Rugby League Posts

ALX21 - RD 21 SquadsBulldogs15 D.MaroskeStorm14 J.Turpin15 C.GaloRaiders6 L.LewisBroncos5 E.Alick6 J.Nikorima14 W.BrimsonCowboys6 T.Carucci7 C.Ba...
Fromthenest - Well there you go. Apparently Wide Bay's final is being played Thursday between Norville SS of Bundy and St Pat's Gympie. I am lead to be...
seaeagles - your post is a good while back now,but I think you are on to a good thing there.i am based on the southern tip of the central coast(ex-Sy...
OutbackEyes - CAIRNS FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND 2014 Tassell Trophy Club Challenge Under 14’s Carnival will be held at Vico Oval, Irene St Mooroobool, Cairns...
Leblancboys - Carina have had a number of season ending injuries and a coaching crisis mid year which can hurt the boys. East have been struggling for ...
tarifsetu - Saturday 6 September 2014, Australia vs South Africa live rugby streaming online championship 2014 match watch HD TV broadcast Full Free ...
tarifsetu - Saturday 6 September 2014, Australia vs South Africa live rugby streaming online championship 2014 match watch HD TV broadcast Full Free ...
ALX21 - Cowboys should lock Marshall Hudson in for a few years. One to keep an eye on.

Game by Game Discussions

Table 'rleague.meeting' doesn't exist
SELECT m.SportID as CategoryID, 'SportID' as CategoryType, m.Name as MeetingName, e.Name as EventName, m.MeetingID, e.EventID, e.EventNumber, e.StartTime, e.ForumPosts as Posts FROM `event` e INNER JOIN meeting m ON m.MeetingID = e.MeetingID WHERE NOT e.`Status` = 'closed' AND e.EndTime > UTC_TIMESTAMP() AND (m.SportID = 4 AND m.Removed = 0) AND (ISNULL(OrderIndex) OR OrderIndex <= 100) GROUP BY e.EventID ORDER BY e.StartTime LIMIT 20
backtrace/var/www/html/core/master.php800mc/var/www/html/data/forumPosts.php737loadUpcomingEvents/var/www/html/api/v2/api.php160Process/var/www/html/api/v2/api.php75Run/var/www/html/core/master.php866renderSlats/var/www/html/rleague/Forum_Right.php53include_once/var/www/html/Forum.php181