Polaroid Saint

It amuses me greatly that people who consider themselves 'left wing' or 'independent thinkers' are voting UKIP. A party that whole-heatedly supports TTIP! FFS, do some research people! Anyway, vote how you want, of course, and enjoy your right to do so, it should be an interesting outcome. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

It is a fantastic phone. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Aye. I was aware of interest before but this is the first time I have heard it (today) from someone 'at' Leeds (my mate is just a supporter who likes to stick his nose in and tends to know a fair bit. Not always guaranteed, but hey). Wise, even if we are just keeping tabs. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I understand from a friend at Leeds that Saints are in for Sam Byram again. Might be old news, but they (my contact) were treating it as current activity, so who knows!? Good player though.

Hey, you are right I couldn't help myself. Ignoring the fact I just read the wonderful and interesting posts from bexy, tim, whitey and so on and happened to be on the thread, however I must say; please stop wasting your time on me. Look at the above posts. THEY are useful. You have nothing to say. Look, I am sure you are a lovely chap and I did feel bad calling you a rude name. I don't wish to upset you or belittle you. So, when we meet at a match or discussing some other nonsense on here, I will treat you with the love and dignity I afford everyone I meet. However on this thread, you are nothing more than an irritant. I haven't claimed anything controversial, I have only asked you explain your initial chart and the dates compared to the email. You haven't. That's all I asked. You then went off on one and instead asked me to come up with a justification for something I don't think actually happened in the way you alleged?!?! I did mention there are thousands of websites discussing it and most exonerate the CRU et al. THAT was my response to your accusations of manipulation. You could look at them yourself, seeing as you are so interested; I am not, ergo I am not doing your investigation for you, sorry! Also, I am NOT an alarmist. Read my post on this thread (they clearly show I am not an alarmist) and my statement 'this is not my area of interest' should be clear enough too; honestly not that bothered. Glad you can chalk this up as a win, I am genuinely happy for you; But please don't ask me to engage with you again when you continue to ignore my very simple request for you to explain the errors. It's just rude and, you know, people get frustrated and end up hurling abuse! *goes back behind rock* Pfft! Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I didn't call myself clever. You did, you utter pr!ck... ...ignored! Hahahaha. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I am not making any claims.. ...just asking you to back yours up. Simply put; you used poor science to prove your point. By using a later graph (there are graphs available where the data is from 2007 compared to 2011) and only a snippet of the email, you are falling foul of the exact same errors (intentional or not) that you are chastising the members of the CRU for (Namely hiding raw data and cherry picking other bits). It didn't take someone 'as clever as me' too long to find those graphs and the full email online. Millions of pages in fact. Oh, and looking through that information, one soon 'realizes' that most of the info out there exonerates those accused of having 'grubby little hands'. (By the way, it is considered the norm to take the most recent date when referencing the 'date of data' not the start date, but hey if you wish to refer to the date of data in any instance as "the earliest date, onwards" then fine, just don't expect to be taken seriously or to be of use). I asked if you could explain the descreprancy in the dates. Alas you can't and... ...Actually, I am bored of this. There is no point discussing this with conspiracy theorists and paranoia buffs. FFS, this not my area of interest or expertise - I came to this thread to learn a little bit more myself. Certainly not to listen to the same old crap being retrod by the same people week in week out. Look; if you are happy to keep banging on about one event five years ago to support your crippled theory, then fine: You are in a tiny and shrinking minority and really (really!) can and will be easily ignored. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Noisy and easily led rabble. You are a card GM. I am intrigued though. This post continues to suggest you now wholeheartedly believe in mankind's ability to affect the environment he lives in? Is this the case? Do you now accept - given the changes since the 18th century you yourself have highlighted - mankind can change his environment? Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Yep. I guessed as much. Look George. I have tried not to be rude. But mate... ...even the abstract you posted didn't support your claim. You clearly didn't understand it and, whilst that is fair enough, we can't all be bright enough to follow these things, don't use something you don't understand. Like the 'Mann' style of doing things that you refers to with that cobbled together graph/email. Do your research first! You CANNOT claim that an email from 2009 is asking someone to change data from 2011. Unless you are also suggesting time travel, that isn't possible. My point is, as Whitey G also points out, there is so much information and misinformation out there you could cut n paste to support any opinion. You could have found some genuinely damning evidence from the CRU controversy of 2009. Loads of websites dedicated to it (and the fall out over the last five years). But instead you choose a graph and email that do not match and claim this disinformation is useful to members of this forum. It is not useful, merely emotive. So, now I can be sure (from your confession you didn't read this paper) that you just cut n paste without comprehension; I can treat you and your work and attitude like any other Remedial Year 8 student. (Which is great, there is hope for you!) Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Please explain the dates. Explain the dates George, or can't you? Or do dates not interest you? What I do want to do point out (to others) that you continually post falsehoods and misdirection in this thread. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Brilliant. For several months GM has used the tired argument that the 'graphs don't work'; cherry picking images and outdated data, in a concerted attempt to discredit suggestions man has an influence on his environment. Then today, out of nowhere, he fully accepts it and goes on to paint a picture of pre industrial Britain where things were very different. Not sure what his point is... ...Other than displaying that he. Guided Missile, finally accepts that human activity has a massive effect on the planet. Hurrah, well done GM. Although the way he counties to link casual data together in a way that suggests it is causal is still quite sad. Glad someone is watching the Georgians series on the BBC though. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Interesting. Do you have a link to the full report at all? I can only find this abstract. Have you read the full report at all? Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

That was St Georges point on posting that. To discredit. Not to bring new information, or even an opinion, to the debate. No. He was only muck raking; taking a (fairly innocuous in truth) graph and attaching THAT quote and email header (no context, not the entire email, not anything about the subsequent fallout) from, apparently, five years ago. It worked; it's reinforced the idea that it is common practice for scientific researchers to alter figures to suit their desired conclusions! Hey! If people wish to believe that's how science works then, sod it; some people are just not bright enough to understand some things and they will remain blissfully (or in most cases angrily, it seems) ignorant.

Yawn. "The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis."

The chart looks to me like any other where two years of refinement and further data gathering has improved the quality of results. The quote is attributed to an email dated two years before the first set of results in the chart. Which sounds suspiciously like cherry-picking bits of old and contrary data and pasting them together to discredit something or someone.

I have no idea what this is for or about. Or what you are trying to imply or prove with this post. Seems a little odd given loads of new data was published today? However; your post shows a chart with improved data from 2013, over original data from 2011 (that basically looks like any other chart where more information has been gathered and better quality results are plotted). The email is from 2009. So, my question is simple; what was the point of your post? Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

No problem; although I hope most people realise that the industrial revolution, although starting in Telford, England, did actually spread out across the globe quite quickly!? Sadly, England didn't keep their taming of live steam to themselves! Any boy who has watched his westerns will know they had Railways in the new nation of the United States of America! Both Europe and Japan began to industrialise shortly after Britain and in the years after 1870 (sometimes called the 'second' or 'second wave of' industrial revolution) most of what we have called the 'first world' or 'developed world' in the past was fully industrialised (i.e. new technologies in milling, mining, chemical production, paper and print, agriculture, transport, use of steel, etc etc combined with most power coming from Steam). So, by 1880, you have your answer. We still live in the Age of Steam, by the way, burning coal or radiating uranium or whatever - it is all about turning that turbine! Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Seriously? Okay... ...does this help? http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/history/industrial_era/the_industrial_revolution/revision/3/ Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Thankfully the hideously-poor-and-totally-without-influence Power lobby have internet warriors like GM and George to discredit one group of scientist's (constantly peer reviewed and updated) findings. Thank goodness for that. We wouldn't want the struggling energy companies to lose out in this PR battle for hearts and minds. Those huge all powerful environmental cartels that run the world really get my goat, what with constantly publishing reviewable data and improving their projections n that.... ...I wonder what kind of data would be available if we lived in a world where the most powerful organisations with the most political influence and financial clout were actually energy companies? Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

This is a fair point and only adds further weight to the Climate Change argument. In the olden days finding a Lesbian with a cock n balls was quite tricky and they only really existed in large numbers in remote communities of far east Asia. Then a few years ago they started cropping up in northern European enclaves, but really you only heard about it from the odd kid at school who lived with his uncle. Nowadays they are everywhere and you never quite know until its too late; as anyone who has exhausted their normal supply of lesbian internet porn will attest. The shock and shame is not easily forgotten. Lesbian dinosaurs with cock n balls is one thing but I worry that I have started to grow an extra cock just thinking about it all. Climate Change that is. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

This is one forum contributor that has cracked me up over the last few weeks. " Desperate, Dim and Gullible. " Excellent stuff George; keep up the amusing facade of arrogance and ignorance. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

All good stuff. That's more where I had been with epigenetics, Badger; I have encountered it a few times in the ol' nature/nurture debate, vital stuff. Thee idea that such changes are then passed on to successive generations has blown my tiny mind a little bit and I will continue to read more. Initially i am sold, although I feel there is still a big responsibly on the mechanics of evolution to select those changes etc. Yeah right. Back on topic: "Solar Panels: is that an adaption in response or in anticipation of climate change? They are a waste of money and they look ugly? Or should we just paint our roofs white?" Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Interesting stuff, compelling defence of broad lamarckism. I have also bookmarked the website too, looks nicely geeky. Well, I take it all back George! You are right, we can just adapt! A few generations down the line and we will all have webbed feet and gills like Kevin Costner in that film. Or people from p**tsm**th. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Great links, nice one. I am aware of, but not overly familiar with, epigenetics so I will enjoy reading more. What little I do know suggests that, as contentious as it sounds, the implied effect of epigenetics is that learnt traits are passed down one or more generations; and this sounds remarkably Lamarckian. I'm not yet convinced it truly follows that these 'adaptations' are dominant, lasting or at truly DNA level (chemical response?). Anyway, good call and hopefully I'll know more in a minute. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Ummm. (again). Two issues here; you seem to believe that everyone that agrees mankind has contributed to the most recent rapid change in global climate is a) an alarmist and b) unwilling to adapt. As Bexy said, changing one's habits (eg reducing output of CO2), and adapting to counter negative effects of perceived climate change (eg flood defenses) are not mutually exclusive. Also, you seem to have completely misunderstood how evolution works; no organism has ever 'adapted' in response to a changing environment. Ever. Ever, ever. What happens is an organism may, by sheer chance, have a mutation that subsequently enables it survive in an altered environment (eg changed climate). What you're suggesting with the outrageous claim 'Nature Adapts' is right up there with Lamarckism. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk