Sheaf Saint

I like this bit at the end... Now maybe I'm just experiencing Deja Vu, but I'm sure I have heard all that somewhere before in the not too distant past. If I could just put my finger on where...

Once again, you give further proof, if any were needed, what a small-minded moron you are St G. Firstly, none of the proposals I have seen or heard or read recently (and it's been hard to ignore lately due to the Copenhagen summit) involve the world having to go back to a victorian lifestyle. Quite the opposite in fact, most of the new green technology that is being proposed would in fact take the world forward rather than back. Nice try though. Secondly, with regards to the Telegraph article, all it proves is that we have a a handful of scientists making claims about the climate, one of whom admits that his group has in the past received funding from ExxonMobil, without one single piece of evidence to back up their claims - not a single graph or explanation of where their data came from; not one report on their findings or published paper to indicate how they came to these conclusions - and you fall for it hook, line and sinker as if what they are stating is absolute fact that proves beyond any doubt that you are right, and those of us who are open-minded enough to accept the possibility of MMCC are utterly wrong. Dear oh dear.

Dear god, I cannot stand that woman. She proved what a small-minded idiot she is during last year's presidential election campaign, and she has done nothing to change my view on that since. What she is effectively saying here is that the world should ignore all scientific evidence pointing to MMCC just so that Americans can continue to enjoy cheap fuel. Really thinking long term there aren't you Sarah!

Or what about this, touchable holograms!.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3seTlvQtIgc&feature=related

Well not quite... Quite an amazing scientific development IMO.

The only decent christmas song ever written is Fairytale of New York by The Pogues/Kirsty McColl. All the rest, without exception, are utter sh1te.

Going back to what I was saying about the Coen brothers the otehr day, I came home from work early today cos I'm poorly sick so me and my GF decided to dig out the Coens boxset and watch The Hudsucker Proxy I only have very vague recollections of seeing this film on TV many years ago and not watching all of it either, so this is really the first time I have seen it all, and what a wonderful film it is. I love the way the Coens re-create the atmosphere of the particular time period in which their films are set. This time it is in 1950s New York and the film itself is a new take on the B&W screwball comedies that were being produced in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s. The sets are visually stunning, and there are some deliciously OTT performances, particularly from Jennifer Jason Leigh who I thought was just brilliant. The twisted reality that is created for the film works so well with the script and I found myself laughing non-stop both at the dialogue and the visual quirks. For all its merits though, it does seem to lack a little bit of the human emotion that you would normally associate with their other films, so it gets an 8/10

In fairness to him, his acting style was perfect for his role in The Matrix (the first one anyway) - the 'rabbit caught in headlights' look worked really well for the Neo character. Same can be said of Charlie Sheen (another actor so wooden he stays at home on bonfire night 'just in case') in Platoon.

Are you thinking of Javier Bardem? I don't remember Joaquin Phoenix being in it, and I've seen it a couple of times. Anyway, back to the original point, yes it is a very good film and well worth watching. But then I am a little bit blinkered because I am a massive fan of the Coen brothers work. The story does seem a little dis-jointed in parts, and it ends very abruptly leaving you thinking 'is that it????' (though I am told that is how the book ends), but overall it is the atmosphere and the dialogue which, like all Coen brothers films, make it what it is.

Maybe Pulis lost his cool cos Beattie was getting up his nose

That would have been an absolute tragedy if had been lost. Always had a great night there, it's always busy with a great crowd. I took some friends from Sheffield there last year to see Easy Star Allstars and they absolutely fell in love with the place. Really glad it was saved. I live 200 miles away these days but I still get to at least one gig a year there whenever I come down to visit friends.

Reminds me of the relative of a Lockerbie victim who went on the news after Al-Megrahi was released, claiming that 'The people of the UK should be ashamed of themselves' as if the world has some kind of obligation to keep the Americans happy. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the comments of these two people. They are obviously allowing their emotions to influence their opinions rather than the actual facts of the case. That behaviour isn't exclusive to Americans by any means. But perhaps they are well aware of the fact that their foreign policies have created a large amount of anti-american sentiment all over the world and are making the connection due to that.

Went to see Dreadzone at The Brook on saturday. Was a bit special.

The way I view it dune, having followed this thread for some time, is that virtually all of the 'Climate Comrades' as you are so fond of calling them, seem more then willing to accept that they may well be wrong. It is you and St George who so arrogantly believe you are right, and persist in throwing insults at those who point out that your logic might, just might, be flawed. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones you know.

Well that makes a change, cos normally it's always raining in Manchester. I'm glad I live the other side of the pennines so most of the bad weather off the atlantic dissipates over the peaks before it reaches us.

So I finally got round to watching this the other day, and I have mixed views on it. It's an enjoyable enough action movie, which ticks all the right boxes in terms of stunts, CGI etc... But is it Star Trek though? For me they have tried too hard to give it as much mainstream appeal as possible, rather than keeping the die-hard fans of the ST franchise happy. The series of events which brings together the original crew is just sooo improbable that it is laughable, but hey - it makes a good action movie. I also think that the characterisation was poor - the only one who I found convincing as an earlier incarnation of the original character was the guy who plays McCoy. Kirk just wasn't kirk, likewise Chekov and Uhura. Spock was OK-ish but too humanised, and as for Simon Pegg as Scotty - I liked him but he didn't in any way convince me he was the young Montgomery Scott. And the whole story that brought Leonard Nimoy back as the old Spock was pretty poor as well. Just a crap excuse to get one of the original cast to do a cameo if you ask me. Well because of the whole time paradox thing involving Spock, it means that everything that happened in this film happened in an alternative reality. So as well as giving them a convenient excuse to alter the events which lead to Kirk gaining command of the Enterprise, it also means that the producers now have total free reign to completely re-write ST history from this point onwards. How very handy for when (not if - it's obvious) they decide to make the next one. As a Star Trek fan, I give it 3/10. That aside, as somebody who enjoys the occasional sci-fi action blockbuster, I would give it a 7.

To be honest Dune, I would take what this prof says with a pinch of salt even if tha article appeared anywhere other than the Daily Express. For him to claim that every scientist who believes in MMCC has a 'vested interest' in keeping the campaign going is naive at best, and inflamatory in the extreme. What about people like James Lovelock? Is he only interested in getting further funding for research? Secondly, why do you persist in making this connection between left-wing politics and concern for the environment Dune? I asked you before but you conveniently ignored it. Do you believe that it it impossible to be concerned about our climate and future energy needs while being on the right of the political spectrum? Is environmental consciousness the sole reserve of socialists, tree-huggers and hippies? If that is what you genuinely believe then you are, I hate to say, an idiot. And thirdly, why do you feel the need to be so insulting towards people who do not share your view?

I've never had any infractions, but I handed out quite a few during my short stint as an admin. It made me feel all powerful and important.

ST G, you really are something else. You seem to be using the fact that Britain has signed up to the Lisbon Treaty as some kind of insult against the whole population of Britain now. Please take into account that it was done by our beloved government, behind our backs, after they promised faithfully in their last election manifesto that we would be given a referendum to decide for ourselves. Now I know you can argue that we should never have believed promises made by any politicians in the first place (I didn't vote for them in case you want to know), but could you please clarify how exactly that makes us a 'nation of bed wetters' as you so eloquently put it? Short of gathering en masse, marching on whitehall and starting a revolution, I don't see what else we could have done about it.

Still waiting for you to answer my questions St George. If you could just take 30 seconds out from throwing childish insults at everybody to respond them, that would be most appreciated.

At which point he promptly buggered off on holiday while Israel rolled the tanks into Gaza last year. Was anybody else concerned that the UN Peace Envoy for the area was deafening with his silence during the entire conflict?

Did anybody see the preposterous Lord Falconer on QT lastnight, venomously trying to defend the actions of Blair and co in the run up to the invasion? Cringeworthy TV at it's best. He even had the nerve to repeatedly state that at no point did Blair tell any untruths regarding the intel which the war was based on. Apparently he gave parliament all of the facts that were available to him and he never misled anybody. Hmmmm, this coming from a close friend of the Blair who was handed the position of Lord Chief Justice by him, and who then went on to spend 300 grand of taxpayers' money decorating his Westminster appartment. Forgive me if I have reservations about his impartiality in the matter.

whoop-de-****ing-doo, aren't you clever. Or not, seeing as you can't even spell the word 'gullible'. And you think that a (admittedly well produced) youtube comedy song and video made by CC skeptic proves your case? Sheesh. St George, I would just like to ask you a few questions, seeing as you pointedly refuse to answer Minty's.... Let's all assume for one moment that you are indeed correct, and that the world isn't heating up and MMCC is a complete myth. Even taking this into account, do you still think it is sensible and practical to continue burning up the remainder of the world's fossil fuels and other natural resources, chopping down trees at an alarming rate and dumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere? Do you genuinely believe that it is OK for the world to continue doing that without the slightest fear of there being even the tiniest negative effect on our environment? Do you not think that it is important for the world to invest in renewable energy sources NOW in anticipation of the time when all of the natural resources run out?

And that, right there St George, is precisely the reason you are treated with such utter contempt on this forum - because you are unable to show the slightest bit of respect for anybody else's point of view.

Oh well that's that then. Panic over everybody. We can carry on dumping millions upon millions of tonnes of polluting gases into our atmosphere and it won't matter a jot because any changes in the climate will be purely natural and not in any way related to the rape of the planet that we are currently undergoing. The way I see it is essentially the same as Minty: If there is even a 1% chance that the current climate change anthropogenic then we as a species must work together to reduce any possible impact until we know for absolute certain (which I doubt we ever actually will). The phrase 'better safe than sorry' never seemed so appropriate. Oh and Dune, you lose any respect or credibility you might have ever had when you start throwing pathetic generalisations about like "the lefties have their heads so far up arses that they don't even consider the FACT that the worlds climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawm of time." Firstly, who are the 'lefties' you refer to? Do you consider that everybody on the planet who is open-minded about the possibility of MMCC must by default be on the left politically? Is it not possible to be concerned about the future of our planet while at the same time sit on the right of the political spectrum? And secondly, I haven't seen one single post on this thread where anybody has denied the FACT of the natural cycles you speak of. Why is it that the balanced, informed and reasoned posts on this thread are from the people that accept the majority scientific view and care about the future of our environment, and the ranting frothing-at-the-mouth ones are from the climate change deniers? Is there something to be read into that?