Hokie

I think they still do. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus Okay, I'd say scientifically no debate is ever "over", but the existing data is definitively in support of the theory.

Yes, yes, yes. That was exactly my point. You remind me of the Groucho Marx line, "I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but I refuse to fight an unarmed man." Seriously though, is a billion as you present it a thousand million, or million million. I'd dare say that cost estimates that differ by 10^3 are key to an intelligent discussion. Also, are those UK costs, or global, or what?

Hmmm. Is that worldwide, Europe, or UK costs? Constant dollars or inflation adjusted to 2030? Is that a US billion (10^9) or British billion (10^12)? Ironically, assuming a billion is a thousand million--which seems likely unless its been translated, that's very roughly about the cost the US was spending per annum during the Iraq War.

There comes a point in a viva when you stop asking questions of the candidate and ask him to excuse himself from the room for the examination committee to discuss his case. GM is that rare failing student that doesn't realize how f*cked he is and leaves smiling when everyone else there is thinking, "F*ck me, how did he get this far?" Either that, or I've been trolled. Do I bother? Okay, more fool me. Review papers, as in actual review papers, are also reviewed. I'd suggest you look for ones that are in well regarded and indexed scientific sources, rather than published by political organizations, at least if you want to convince the scientifically literate. As such, the review paper you cite (Robinson, et al. 2007) is highly dubious as it is published by a the journal of a right-wing advocacy organization and is not included in scientific indices (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science). So, yes, it does matter where review papers are published. (Actually, despite your go at them, I'd consider Popular Mechanics to be an ok source for a popular review. I can't quickly find an editorial, but it looks from yet another desparate Google, that they also believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC).) Anyhow, you then seem to think that listing all references from the questionable review is supportive of your premise. However, review papers will cite works that provide general background for the discussion and make claims that the author disagrees with in addition to making claims that the review author agrees with. So listing the 132 sources of this is not particularly convincing of anything. Picking a few, it seems doubtful that articles with titles such as "The recent expansion of Pluto’s atmosphere" speak much to ACC. The peer review process is essential for a review paper, as authors often misread or misapply the references. A good reviewer will stop you as an author from saying "source A claims B", if that is not the case. I have no idea if Robinson, a trained Biochemist of some reknown (and some controversy) who also chairs the Oregon Republican Party, interprets the references correctly, either due to working outside his field or through outright political bias. Personally, I have a hard enough time keeping up with good science, without challenging myself with wading through the crap. Anyhow, for you, GM, to imply that all these references deny or are agnostic regarding ACC is either dishonest or ignorant regarding science (or both). Perhaps you are smarter than me. In general, I would not claim to have the ability to say one way or the other. But from what I read here, you know next to nothing about the actual practice of science or scientific publishing, or you are on a wind-up. Oh, and OldNick, since no one has replied: I do fly, on occasion, when needed for work and holiday. I also usually drive to work, although I also occasionally walk as well. If that makes me a hypocrite, I won't argue the point. However, I'd say the truth (or lack thereof) of ACC, is not affected by my personal choices. The fact that I don't contribute to Oxfam, does not prove children are not starving in Africa, but merely that I'm a tit. Further, I find litter disgusting, and support fines for littering, rather than just a plea that anyone who objects to litter stop and those that don't keep on. Does that help?

Oh, I do agree, although I may have a personal bias to see it otherwise. Anyhow, my comment (regarding the claim of A > B) was based more on my observations here of A, than any assessment of B, bar that they have PhDs. Plus the owner of A brought it up, so it is open to discussion, as it were. One could also claim that gullibility and obstinance is not always a sign of lack of intelligence, and sometimes they walk hand-in-hand. Edward Teller who was brought up here comes to mind for me, although that is a discussion for another day. Cheers WG also for the link to Bjorn Lomborg. It looks intelligent and challenging.

Back to this. When I saw the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, alarm bells went off. A typical test of scientific quality is, ask "Where are the persons publishing?" A trick often used is to send an article to a journal that is not able to fully review the work. I thought, why would a journal devoted to physicians and surgeons publish this? So I googled (desperately, I know GM) to try and understand,and it was worse than that. The first hit, was the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."[1][2] The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 3,000 in 2011.[1][3] Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey;[4] the executive director is Jane Orient, a member of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The AAPS motto, "omnia pro aegroto" is Latin for "all for the patient."[5] AAPS also publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (formerly known as the Medical Sentinel). The Journal is not indexed by mainstream scientific databases such as the Web of Science or MEDLINE.[6] The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal has been criticized by others. Many of the political and scientific viewpoints advocated by AAPS are considered extreme or dubious by other medical groups.[1] Keep going, GM. I want to hear more about how you're smarter than all the PhDs working for you.

Which scientists can't agree? Simple question? Where are they? The scientific community is clear. If you choose to not believe the scientific community, that's your choice. But don't present it as a community in dispute. I don't believe the increase in fuel bills and taxes are due to fear-mongering over global warming. A slightly better argument could be made for the former, but the later? Granted a sensible program for modulating effects of climate change may increase both, but surely well-intended persons are trying to reduce long-term costs. I'd like my taxes and fuel costs to be as low as possible, but not at the expense of drastic costs down the road for myself. My mental health? So in addition to being better than 90% of the world's authorities on climate science, your now a licensed therapist? I'm impressed! Rather than destroying the planet, I'd say its more likely to increasingly cost lives, flood cities, hurt economies, and yes, raise taxes. You say humans can't effect climate? I do hope you are right. But, surely you recognize those with more knowledge in that area than you (or I) say otherwise.

Oh, now that you put it that way, you've convinced me. Well supported argument. Well done. B*llocks you say. I did not realize that. I wonder if any of the Royal Society have heard that it is b*llocks? Are you looking to publish this in Nature by chance? I do like your research into the p*ssing off Weston Shore. That's the type of good hard scientific thinking that we have not seen in this nation in 800 years. Well-reasoned, and well that's all one needs, isn't it? (Seriously! Convince me, man!) Beating a drum about "global warming" v. "climate change" is a time waster. Either term I can work with. Using one or the other, I don't believe labels one as in one camp or the other. I think climate change is more descriptive (touches on increase in storms, changing precipitation patterns, etc.), although using global warming might be an attempt to communicate to the masses. And yes, I know its from NSIDC, as was my graph. The arctic graph supports a warming hypothesis. Can we agree there? The antarctic graph does not, although one must recognize that looking only at "area of sea ice" is selectively choosing the data. ("Lovely plumage") Antarctic land ice is decreasing, temperatures are rising (both satellite and ground measured). (Yes, Arctic measures support the sea ice up north.) Can we agree the antarctic climate system is more complex, due to the fact that it is a frozen land mass, shedding fresh water and ice into the sea, surrounded by a far more open circulation of wind and ocean currents? Or is any effort a wasted argument. I don't consider "googling" as desperate, rather just looking for good sources that both of us would consider unbiased. Since when is doing research to support your views desperate? You might convince me with a little more of your own. Where is the common ground to have this dicussion, mate? I wouldn't waste our time presenting anything from climateskeptics.com, or the Independent or Guardian for that matter. Honestly, I'd give a jaundiced view of the Telegraph and Mail. Can we agree on Nature, Science, National Geographic, New Scientist, Scientific American being both readable to the educated layman and unbiased? Also, if the Royal Society are a bunch of biased fools, what scientific societies can we trust? Sorry for "desparate googling", but not being a climate scientist, I look to things like this http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php which IMO weigh heavily. What have you got actually? Anyhow, from my "desparate googling"/search for truth over the last several years, I believe that climate is changing, as it has done for the history of the planet. However, it seems to me that 90-99.9% of scientists who study this type of thing believe anthropogenic effects are accelerating this phenomena. I also believe that while some places may benefit, as a whole, climate change has negative effects for humanity, mostly due to the fact that we have largely sorted out where to plant and live that works well for the status quo. Where that leaves me is asking what can be done to mitigate the effects? What is wise, and what is foolish? What role do developed nations have compared to developing nations? I'd love to have that conversation. The problem is, as I see it, that if you begin to talk sensibly about ways to moderate the effect, you get a politically powerful group (or some drunken fool in a a pub) who say its not happening, and that this thing that is not happening anyhow, is not caused by humans.

GM, I agree. Anyone looking to make bread on research dollars in climate sciences is a nutter. If it's about the money, do you really think the petro-companies pay less than governmental research councils? Honestly, to claim that researchers are going green for the financial benefit makes me think you are a fool that will believe anything. Please educate me otherwise. Thanks for the two more graphs. The arctic one is largely refuted by my earlier graph, and those posted by others. The antarctic one is more complex. (Your original post had me confused as most deniers go to antarctic sea ice, not arctic.) Anyhow the antarctic sea ice paradox is an interesting case. What do you think about this explanation? http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709 Do you even accept Nature as having authority, or are they part of the nutters? Are the Royal Society nutters? (http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/) "It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years." Name a scientific society that refutes, or is even agnostic about, anthropogenic climate change. (Hint, I have found one. Can you?) Oh, and the Northwest passage? Good question. I googled it. Lo and behold,... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/bulk-carrier-capitalizes-on-arctic-shortcut/article14405743/

GM, here's an even better image that proves your point! From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Oh.

If I'm honest, I'd add to several of those above that I believed: 1. Lambert would not succeed in the premier league 2. Replacing Pardew with Adkins was a mistake 3. Strachan would take us down, but Redknapp would keep us up

Hoping for a draw, so both ManU and Arsenal drop points. I'd rather a top 4 finish at the end of the season than to (possibly) sit in top position after 12 games.

Perhaps Boruc more than Lovren. Also thought Morgan, but with Cork on the bench, think we'd survive.

Up until today, I thought we were riding high up the table because we hadn't played many of the top half teams. Now, I'm thinking those teams are in the top half because they haven't played us.

From the user comments under the match report on the Guardian, "Dropping points needlessly against vastly inferior teams, as they’ve done today, might prove extremely costly come the end of the season in the race to secure a European place. Definitely something Mauricio Pochettino needs to be working on."

Really? The problem was that there was no one on Giaccherini. HTH.

Can this be added to? So you think you can tell Johnny Depp from Daniel

The squad was only officially announced yesterday, and he was on it. Not sure how long camp even lasts for this useless international break, in general.

Well done to him, but he's not ahead of Nick Rimando in the pecking order for the US. I'd also sincerely doubt that he's ahead of Sean Johnson and Bill Hamid. Those three are all MLS-based and were taken from their teams for several weeks during the Gold Cup recently. The friendly is played in Europe, so it makes good sense to have a look at him and not upset the MLS teams as they finish their seasons. Keeper is the one position Yanks never worry about.

Ouch. Too true.

Good thing or not, I'm not sure how many Saints fans would want to put on a Arsenal top.

To lose points from a winning position, you first have to find yourself in a winning position. Most teams don't find themselves up against United and City. I'd be interested to see the points not as an absolute number, but as a percentage. I suspect that may bring Saints back towards the average. Further, its easier to defend a lead for 10 minutes than 80. Saints seem to me (I'm sure the stattos can check) to score early in matches, which is a good thing, but gives more opportunity to the opponent to pull the game back. So, I want to see the stat: points lost per minute ahead. Anyone?

An easy way to look at it? Assuming QPR and Reading are gone, all 6 teams below us must do better than us for Saints to go down. Assigning 50/50 odds to each team makes the Saints chance of going down now 1/2^6 or 1.6 %. The actual odds on say Villa bettering us are nowhere near 50/50. Guaranteed safe? No. But the bookies odds are taking the p***.

"But the previous manager [Michael Appleton] called me and offered me the chance to play for Portsmouth and it was a no-brainer." A different interpretaion on "no-brainer": Something you'd only agree to if you had no brain.

Get in!!!!