Sheaf Saint

Yep. She's nothing but an uneducated, untalented, disgusting slag, but she isn't quite as contemptible as the utter morons who actually pay money to read about her antics in pathetic rags such as Heat magazine. The fact that these kinds of magazines take up half the bloody displays in most newsagents is indicative of just what is wrong with British society today.

One thing that bugs me is the trend of putting ex-reality TV contestants in on the 'celebrity' special version of the show. Seriously WTF!?!?

I'll be making my annual pilgrimage to Beatherder - a little gem of a festival hidden away in the Lancashire countryside that I have been to for the last 3 years running. Other than that, not sure. Some mates of mine usually go to The Big Chill every year so I might go to that depending on the line-up.

Is life all that? No, I've found it to be a series of one disappointment after another. Don't get me wrong - I'm not depressed at all (I've been there and done that thanks) - I've just come to accept the realisation that things are never as exciting or fulfilling as they are made out to be. Everyday life is just sh1t really - go to work, take abuse from some knobheads about things that aren't your fault, get no recognition for your efforts, get home and you're too tired to do anything other than sit in front of a computer or watch the brainless drivel that passes for TV entertainment these days. If this becomes a routine over a prolonged period then it's only a matter of time before you start wondering why you bother.

To put dune on my ignore list

As if further proof were needed, you have just shown what an utter fool you are dune. On the Global Warming thread last week, I asked you to comment on David Cameron's commitment to carbon-reduction and how that squared with your insistence that GW is a lie perpetuated by socialists as a way to raise taxes, and your response was: Care to comment on this blatant contradiction dune?

Went to see The Way Back with my GF yesterday. It's based on a true story about a group of men who break out of a Siberian gulag in 1940 and trek all the way to India to escape from the Soviets and the Nazis. It's beautifully filmed with some stunningly picturesque scenery, and Colin Farrell (who I had always had down as nothing but a pretty-boy half actor before now) is excellent as a Russian convict, but overall it lacks a certain something. The chemistry between the main characters is never fully convincing and there are only so many ways you can flesh out a story as simple as this. Worth a watch 7/10

I haven't seen it yet, but I recommend you give it a go and try not to compare it to the JW original. I saw a recent interview with one of the Coens about it and he said their approach to it was as a different interpretation of the book, rather than as a re-make of the film.

Me: How do you reconcile David Cameron's commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK with your assertion that MMGW is a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes? You: I am a right wing Conservative/UKIP supporter. So you think that constitutes a reasonable answer do you? It seems to me that there is no way you can answer it without making yourself look foolish, so you are deliberately avoiding it. Just my opinion of course

The worst one I can think of is Mick Jagger's godawful 'performance' in Freejack.

I think that has to be the most spectacular case of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever witnessed on an internet forum. Any chance of you answering my question BTW dune?

Rule 1?

Weird Al Yankovic in The Naked Gun ;-)

But that doesn't even begin to answer the question. You insist that MMGW is a lie that is perpetuated as part of a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes. If this is true then why is it that David Cameron, who surely does not qualify for your definition of a socialist, is continuing with the previous government's commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the UK?

So, just to repeat the question once again dune, seeing as you have either missed it or, as I suspect, are avoiding it..... How do you reconcile David Cameron's commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK with your assertion that MMGW is a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes?

That doesn't even come close to explaining why David Cameron and the Conservative-led coalition government are continuing the commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK. I want to know how you reconcile this fact with your assertion that the whole global warming issue is just a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes.

I agree with you to an extent (wow, never thought I would find myself typing that!) that issues such as food and water will become a big issue if the population continues to increase at its current rate. But if we have the means to avoid conflict over fuel resources, why would we want to ignore that and go to war anyway? That doesn't make sense on any level. STILL waiting for you to comment on the Coalition government's green policies BTW dune. In your own time......

I don't have all the answers to that. Perhaps though, the taxes are imposed in order to raise funding to research new renewable technologies? Makes sense to me, but you would need to email the gov. and ask them.

But it doesn't need to be that way though does it dune? Surely if we can end our dependence on fossil fuels and resources then there will be no need to enter into conflict about it. Surely not even you could argue that if there is a way that we can avoid conflict then we should pursue that option. Still waiting for your response on the current government's green policies by the way.......

Still wearing the blinkers and spouting the same old drivel I see. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post....

The problem with that though is that we as a society have become totally dependent on coal/oil/gas. The technology to replace carbon-based power production is nowhere near being ready to implement fully, so it has to be done gradually. Imagine if the government ordered everyone to stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, what do you think would happen? A massive majority of the country would be without power and the economy would grind to a standstill because transport would be shut down completely. Shops would not be able to take deliveries of food so there would be riots in the streets by starving people. We would have no armed forces and I am sure that you understand, better than anyone on this forum, the implications of that.

Now this I wholeheartedly agree with. Even if it is proved that man-made carbon emissions have zero affect on the atmosphere (which is surely impossible), we still need to invest heavily in renewable energy in readiness for the time when all the fossil fuels this planet has to offer have been exhausted. The way I see it, we have two options.... We can either bury our heads in the sand, pretend that everything is OK and wait for the inevitable day when there is no more oil left to burn; or we can start making the transition now so that the technology can be perfected in plenty of time.

OK dune, let's for one moment, hypothetically, assume that you are right and that Climate change is just one big hoax invented by socialists in order to impose higher taxes on everyone. How do you explain this? But then you've always got frothing right-wingers reading their copy of the daily Mail and getting all uptight about immigration and getting in a tiz about scrounging benefit cheats. See what I've done there? It is testament to your true character that you are unable to grasp the basic concepts that people point out, and unwilling to address the actual points raised and instead resort to pathetic stereotyping.

I'm not intolerant of your opinions. You didn't state an opinion. You tried to pass off as fact a completely inaccurate statement about the content of the article, and I was just pointing out your error. You claimed that scientists were trying to justify the long-term climate data by pointing towards a short-term weather pattern in the atlantic, and accused them of being selective to justify the argument. As far as I can see, that is not what the article says at all. Sorry I bothered. In future I'll refrain from posting and allow you to continue with your blissful ignorance and your selective understanding (see, works both ways doesn't it)

Like many others before you on this thread, you are making the mistake of confusing short-term weather patterns with long-term climate change. The current cold spell is due to the disruption to the jetstream, allowing colder arctic winds to blow over the UK which they normally can't do. This disruption to the jetstream could possibly become a recurring phenomenon as a result of the changing climate. If you read the article thoroughly you will understand that Professor Slingo is absolutely not "justifying global warming by saying it is a bit warmer in Greenland" as you so crudely put it.