Hiro Protagonist

Unlikely. Labor are full steam ahead with the Internet Filter. Sure you might have some dissenting voices from the Left but Conroy is described as a Factional Dalek from the Labor right wing. And it's the right wing powerbrokers who have put Gillard in power. Different Cat, Same spots. She has the female vote now. Unfortunately there are plenty of women who will vote for her for her gender alone. Carbon Tax, Mining Tax, NBN tax pricing. I guess they have to get the money from somewhere with all their spending. And ruin the Australian economy and business australia wide. Carbon Tax will be the big one that kills our economy. In Sydney, we're ruled by women. Lord Mayor > Premier > Governor > Prime Minister > Governor General > Queen. But then Gillard is a Prime Minister elected by unions, weighted with baggage, complicit with every bungle, backflip, broken promise and fiasco that occurred over the past 2.5 years. That's if you can afford it. NBN pricing at the moment is $49.95 a month for 10GB allowance including uploads. ($129.95 for 60GB, $159.95 for 90 GB including uploads). iiNet are the only ISP to my knowledge that has released their pricing plan. Whereas you can get unlimited ADSL2+ for $75.00 per month with TPG. Currently I'm on 130GB (no uploads counted) with Voip for $49.95 with speeds around 10-12 MBps with a download speed of around 1.2Mbps - night and day. I'm happy. There's no way in hell I'm switching over to the NBN with its ridiculous pricing. But then someone has to pay back the 43 Billion for this scheme. I'm all for a NBN but not at the price this is at.

We are in the longest quietest solar activity period in a very long time, It doesn't look like the sun is going to be any more active than is was in 2000 probably less so. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980 A short term solar cycle happens every 10 years according to wiki. Long term it may trend down again, so no, not long term global warming instead it would have a cooling effect, eventually. Like a few hundred years ago when England froze over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle I'm getting a bit sick of the media trying to hype up what is just another solar cycle and a pretty weak one at that. But then, what would the media do if we didn't have a boogie man to fear? The fact of the matter is if we started worrying about every little potential thing that could happen, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. I will take the sun's mighty fury as it comes... and in the meantime, grow a veggie patch out the back.

Next we'll be hearing, a fox took my baby.

Yeah, that was Al Gore.

So you just accept best guesses and estimates and made up figures. okay.

And again you haven't addressed any points. You post to a graph and a picture of 2008 which is questionable. Also on the second link, they make up figures as a best guess and even their research is questionable:

No you haven't. Where were the temperatures taken? In the middle of the desert? In NZ? In Australia? Or in the U.S.? In Antartica? How were the temperatures correlatted? All you've done is shown a graph (from wikipedia) and that's it. Nothing scientific about that when even the research behind it is questionable. Why does one weather centre contradict another weather centre? Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940. The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900.

No, you didn't address any of my points. So you think the ice in Antartica growing and not shrinking is a localised example. We had from 1920 to 1940 far less arctic sea ice than now, but then that's just a localised example according to you. Why does the Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that global warming stopped in 1998. What you're doing is cherry picking from different sources. When other sources are saying the opposite. Science is about what we can prove, thinking of alternative explanations, investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It's not about going off one graph and exclaiming there and then the science is settled. It goes back to what I said in my previous post about the weather stations used in global temperatures. We are currently in a cooling face, before that we were in a warming phase. From 1940 to 1976 we were cooling. So we go through regular cycles of cooling and warming. Also the NASA Goddard Institute has been widely criticised for its data. As stated before, NASA has had to withdraw statements in the past. Also, what about things like volcanoes? Volcanic eruptions will release carbon dioxide; in particular that submarine volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the earth's climate is drastically underrepresented in climate models. Have we seen an increase or decrease in volcanic activity over the last 20/30/40 years? There's so much that isn't represented or researched properly to prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming. BTW, I'm not a climate change sceptic. I just don't believe wildly and blindly in climate change. For me, the science isn't settled. There's more research to be done and more factors to research into than cherry picking results to prove a hypothesis.

If it's a fact, then can you tell me why: It's well known that eastern England is falling, Scotland's rising. Scandinavia's rising, Holland is sinking. We're getting the land go up and down, we're getting sea levels go up and down. We've got this wonderful measuring station in Port Adelaide where sea level was measured here, and people have claimed sea level has actually risen. But in fact, the measuring station has fallen. Why they're (the IPCC) is not looking at the total system of the planet, which includes the influence of space, the influence of sun, the influence of the oceans, ice and the earth. Barry Brook is a biologist. He's done some very good work on the mass extinctions of macro fauna in Australia. He's not a climate scientist, he's done no climate science. Yet he gets quoted by the IPCC on climate change. Professor Kurt Lambeck is a geophysicist who's done a lot of work on sea level changes. What he hasn't looked at is the broad scale of sea-level changes. Sea levels go up and down all the time. He also has not done work on, say, Tuvalu, where the floor of the Pacific Ocean and there's little wonder that Tuvalu is getting a relatively high sea level and nowhere else in the world is. And again, his work is very narrow geophysical work, mainly in the Mediterranean. Yet, Professor Kurt Lambeck is a Climate Change believer who regularly gets quoted by the IPCC. Why are some scientists only looking at different regions and not all regions. If we just take the last 2000 years. The planet was hot in Roman and Greek times. Then it cooled in the dark ages, then it warmed in the medieval warmth. Then it cooled in the little ice ages, and we are now, we've just come out of the little ice age. In the 1930s, it was much hotter. We had from 1920 to 1940 far less arctic sea ice than now, much, much warmer temperatures. Confirmed by NASA. The Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that global warming stopped in 1998. That's one of the four centres, and the four centres differ. That's one of the four centres that put out climate data, and the Hadley Centre use a slightly different database from some of the American centres, they use temperature based on thermometer measurements - some of the others use satellite and balloon. The British meteorological society has actually withdrawn the comments, that the years 1998 to 2006 include the hottest, the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth hottest years in recorded history. NASA also gave similar figures, which they withdrew. NASA was wrong and NASA withdrew as a result of that. NASA had the hottest US temperatures, not the hottest global temperatures. They occur in mid-latitude deserts. They don't occur in areas such as the US, which is not mid-latitude desert. We have 30 years of satellite and balloon measurements of global temperatures. They are not in accord with the other ways we measure temperature, which is done with thermometers in areas where we've got a huge amount of heat given out by villages as small as 1,000 people. And so one set of data where we use a thermometer gives us a completely different story to when we use radioson balloons and satellites. The first thing is that global temperature is a very difficult thing to measure. Secondly, we have a huge bias in the measuring station, and they are mainly in western countries, European countries - they're not in areas where we might get very high temperatures such as in the deserts. We know from 1959 the Royal Society of meteorologists in the UK argued that the variable climate was due to the atom bomb. In the 1970s, they argued that it was due to global cooling. Now they are arguing that we're all going to fry. Why is the ice in Antartica growing and not shrinking.

12 Angry Men. Both the 1957 and 1997 versions. It's pretty much word for word. Although I liked Henry Fonda in the 1957 version there was too much yelling and shouting for my taste. Had to keep turning the volume up and down all the time. I slightly prefer the 1997 version as (even though the characters do get angry and shout) it's not as bad in 'volume' as the earlier version. At least you can hear what the actors are saying instead of them yelling all the time. Also interesting to see so many old actors as well as young actors in the 1997 version. Actors like Willliam Peterson looked so young than when he did CSI. I guess 10 years can really age you in the movie/tv business.

Yeah, I read about that today. Over a will no less. I assume the parents left a substantial amount to the twin brother and he went postal. Now all the family is dead. Even the family lawyer. No winners in all this.

I was under the impression that the majority of Americans choose not to vote and therefore probably don't care what the American Government does overseas whatever morally ambigous that might be. In other words, if the American Government overthrows democratic governments, then most Amercians couldn't care less.

Nuke it!!!

James Cameron has been called in to save us from the Oil Spill. You know you're in trouble, when you have to call in a movie director to plug an oil spill.

As long as the director has a first and last name. never trust a director with one name: Pitof McG Kaos mink

You just did.

Who is C.J. Cregg? She didn't star in Lost. The actress who played the mother/guardian of the island was Allison Janney.

No, they value their life more than fighting for an ideal like democracy. Might have worked centruries ago, but rarely does it happen in todays society.

I think Word 2007 has a better interface and is miles ahead of Word 2003. I use it everyday at work and have never had any compatibility issues.

Richard was pretty dark when he first appeared. When he was with Ethan recruiting Juliet. Manipulating Locke in trying to get his father killed. Locke couldn't kill his father so Alpert gave him a file and through reading that file, Locke was able to manipulate Sawyer to kill his father. Alpert was also involved in the purge of the Dharma Initiative. Ben is exactly like Alpert and Ben turned into a good guy at the end just like Alpert did and I'm sure Hugo would have kept Ben in his place, whereas Jacob was manipulative and manipulated Alpert to do anything he wanted. For me, Ben under Hugo would be more of a good guy than Alpert under Jacob.

Agreed. It was obvious that Ben was the new Alpert.

Found this on Bad Robot, is supposidly an explanation from someone on the show, it is a great read and explains a hell of a lot: First ... The Island: It was real. Everything that happened on the island that we saw throughout the 6 seasons was real. Forget the final image of the plane crash, it was put in purposely to f*&k with people's heads and show how far the show had come. They really crashed. They really survived. They really discovered Dharma and the Others. The Island keeps the balance of good and evil in the world. It always has and always will perform that role. And the Island will always need a "Protector". Jacob wasn't the first, Hurley won't be the last. However, Jacob had to deal with a malevolent force (MIB) that his mother, nor Hurley had to deal with. He created the devil and had to find a way to kill him

I really liked the ending. Fit in really well with the characters.

The lost story told with cats.

Yes, but we haven't seen someone conceived And born on the island. It's always been one or the other, not both.