badgerx16

When is it going to sink in with YOU that I don't give a FLYING F%C£ for your opinion. You are a delusional, misguided, flat-earther, who still won't accept that there may be, just may be, some truth in this whole theory, and will still be parroting your phony "y'all"s, and "have a nice day"s when the midwest is doing an impression of the Sahara and your current abode is a coral reef. This is all reminiscent of the tobacco companies getting more and more abusive and desperate as the mountain of evidence continued to grow against them. The 'anti's are just getting more and more vociferous and vindictive as they realise they are not going to win. Leave me to the truth, the science, and the evidence, and you can go and tuck yourself up with Dune and your collective daydreams. ( Mind you, I am starting to think you are actually one and the same 'peep' ). I wouldn't trust you to tell me the sky was blue and the sun was shining. Y'ALL have a nice life !!! And maybe one day you will realise and accept that some people will, quite reasonably, disagree with you, and that this is a good thing.

Stop wetting yourself, and go back to playing with Bo, Luke, Daisy, and Boss Hogg. ( Plus, please pay better attention to your spelling and grammar ). A group of ( probably Russian ) hackers break into a University computer, ( Note: NOT the Hadley Research Centre ), and leak some raw data and out-of-context e-mails to the Flat Earth Society such that it causes them to go all orgasmic and say the MMCC/AGW conspiracy is blown wide open, ( and as a consequence Dune expects us to accept his fairy story, posted earlier, must therefore be fact ! ). This then goes viral across a number of nay-sayer blogs and misinformation websites, many of which are funded by vested interest groups and companies such as EXXON ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding ), which latch onto two or three key words spread across the whole collection of data, such as the mention of the statistical 'trick', and this then PROVES that climate scientists are all the spawn of Satan, and part of a great Judao-Bolshevik conspiracy to tax us all back to the Stone Age. Please remember that this is not the only institution involved in climate research, there are hundreds spread all around the world, even the USA, and the majority of scientific opinion is that MMCC/AGW is a fact - unless, of course, each and every scientist, and each and every government that signs up to the protocols, is 'IN' on the hoax. Slowly, but surely the truth will once again be asserted; http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/ http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-emails-ncar-kevin-trenberth/ The best quote I've seen so far : “Evidently due to this e-mail conspiracy, Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, and the world’s glaciers are disappearing. Oh yeah, and it’s the hottest decade in history” The only things that this proves are (1) the IT security at UEA is inadequate, and (2) life-long academics are incapable of 'housekeeping' their inboxes.

Just for a second dismiss the Brighton game as a 'blip' and consider this ; An entertaining draw against a potential league champion side follows knocking Brizzle Rovs & Charlton, ( both title chasing teams ) out of the cups, and having just had 4 successive league wins, including MK Dons - another top 6 team. What's so bad ?

On the other hand, we have only failed to score in 2 games all season, Colchester & Swindon. You can't win games by keeping clean sheets, it's done by scoring goals.

And the preceding 4 league games were all won, as have all our cup games been.

Last 10 games we have conceded 16, scored 25; won 7 ( 1 on pens ), drawn 2, lost 1. If we hadn't fu$k£d up the Brighton game, would things look so bad ?

Disappointing, but a vast improvement on the Brighton result. And, as far as I remember, it's still only 1 defeat in 10 games in all competitions, with 7 wins ( admittedly one on penalties ).

Careful Alps, you can't go starting negative threads on here

St G & Dune will no doubt dismiss this as predictable panic response 'cover up' by the scientists who have been 'outed' as frauds ; http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/ http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/ http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves-again/

Better call for Mulder & Sculley, this is way too deep for us sheep For anybody doubting MMCC, or AGW, or whichever other 'conspiracy', Dune is looking to shoot down, just sit down for a few seconds and inwardly digest this quote. Once you have done that ask yourselves this one teensy weensy question, "If I don't support the MMCC theory, do I honestly believe this alternative proposition ?" I presume it was all thought up by the Roswell alien, just after he acted as the second shooter in Dallas (1963), and after he rigged the fake moon landing photos ? This ( above ) has to be the ULTIMATE conspiracy theory, and to be honest, I genuinely feel sorry for anybody who buys into it. Baaaaa!

Maybe not : (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html#factors) Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined. Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global warming are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009) And from the Beeb;( http://HTTP://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm) " Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature. And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

St G, this will become a very predictable tit-for-tat if we start with semantic linguistic arguments. With regard to this debate there are two 'truths'; the first is that the 'facts' can only ever be historical, based on empirical measurement and scientific or statistical analysis, and even then there are any number of 'expert' opinions in that field; you pay your money and you pick which particular donkey you choose to back, we simply choose to differ on which might be right - and to ourselves we both feel that our reasoning is infallible. I respect your right to disagree with me, ( even though you are wrong ). Second, there cannot, by definition, be any 'facts' built into the forward projections, I never present anything in such light, that would be foolish. The visions of the future are projections, extrapolations, the product of scientific theories, interpretations of computer models, messages from a ouija board, pure guesswork, visions from god,- again you pick which one you wish to accept and build your credo upon. Yet again, for the best of reasons we have opted to select and support differing viewpoints. Unfortunately it is likely that neither of us will be alive to know which is ultimately proved to be right, ( PS - it'll be me ! )

Yet he persists in name calling anybody who dares to suggest he might be slightly misled. He doesn't help his side of the debate by constantly reducing his arguments to puerile playground taunting. I am neither dim, gullible, nor a sheep.

From the first quoted article :"We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations,". It continues ; ""Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif." Which is exactly what the climate models have been predicting all along. From the same article :"Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. " Also "But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years." and then there is this "The Hadley Center group expects warming to resume in the coming years. "That resumption could come as a bit of a jolt," says Hadley climatologist Adam Scaife, explaining that natural cyclical warming would then be augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions." Are you coming around and finally seeing the light ? Based on the outcome from your latest GOOGLE search, it would seem so. The second article is written by a confirmed MMCC sceptic, so is bound to be unbiased, isn't it ? And I love your home made PowerPoint in the YouTube video

The monarchy is not necessary for tourism in this country, it is the history, the museums, the cathedrals, the landscape, etc, that bring in the dollars, roubles, euros, ........ Where are the monarchies in France, Italy, the USA, China, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav republics, Greece, etc ? All top tourist destinations.

This is the point in 1989 when Maggie T pulled the wool over our eyes, her speech to the United Nations General Assembly : http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107817 "What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. " "We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.[fo 3] The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones. " "Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: • The land they cultivate ever more intensively; • The forests they cut down and burn; • The mountain sides they lay bare; • The fossil fuels they burn; • The rivers and the seas they pollute. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. " "The negotiation of some of these protocols will undoubtedly be difficult. And no issue will be more contentious than the need to control emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor—apart from water vapour—to the greenhouse effect." Alternatively, a right-wing political giant, with a relevant scientific qualification, understood and interpreted the facts of the research, and realised the severity of the problem, and the challenges that had to be met.

If you don't want to be sent to hot & dusty foreign parts to be blown up by the locals that never invited you, don't take the Queen's shilling. He knew what he was in for when he joined up, he knew the consequences of what he was doing when he 'chose' not to return. Once you put your name at the bottom of their form, you become the Government's pawn. ( No disrespect to TDD and the others on here in the forces, you are all doing a job most of us would run a million miles to avoid ). If the armed forces get to pick and choose what they want to do, you may as well disband the lot.

More bland pointless 'promises' that will not be delivered and spending plans that are completely unfeasible, interspersed with another dose of 'command and control' central Government dictat and bluster for already over-burdened sectors such as education. Nothing more than electioneering for a national poll they are destined to lose. Can somebody please find a Labour party for me to vote for ? As for the Queen's Speech, the Monarchy is another anachronism whose time has long passed.

Dune - aptly named; keep your head buried in the sand. Baaaaaaaaa!

Let us see what David Cameron has to say ; http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/cameron_climate_interview.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-we-need-a-greater-sense-of-urgency-on-climate-change-474841.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4272196/Environmental-revolution-promised-by-David-Cameron.html http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/greenfutures/articles/602739 Veeery left wing agenda Also, Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain supports the theory of MMCC and espouses controls on carbon emissions; http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough/283389 Another commie ?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml (" Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.") http://www.enersolcorp.com/news/2007/Solar_report.htm ("Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.".) http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/ ("Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming") :smt008

It was supposed to be a drop kick, but he didn't let it bounce, so technically it was a punt and therefore he failed.

If you want to present a graph, why not extend it back 30,000 years ? At that point, in the middle of the last Ice Age, Britain was under 1Km of ice, we have sure seen a lot of warming since then. I would have thought that's exactly the kind of statistical information you thrive on. Then again, why not go back to the Cretaceous Period, when there were no ice caps at all, and the sea level was far higher than it is now. ( You would have been happy back then, with all the other dinosaurs ). None of your graphs disprove MMCC, they simply show there is no simple answer.

Why do you never actually read anything that is posted by people who accept MMCC ? NOBODY, I'll repeat that as you seem to be a bit hard of thinking, NOBODY, denies that climate change is a natural geophysical phenomenon, OK - point agreed, don't have a problem with that ! However those who accept the science, and don't immediately and blindly dismiss anything from the Government as another 'stealth tax', have concerns that human activity is exacerbating the problem - not just by adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, but by deforestation and pollution of the seas. You see, in any totally natural event, the balance of nature will be maintained, but we are so obsessed with material wealth and 'my cars bigger than yours' that we are tipping the balance. And whilst it may only be a little bit of the overall total that we contribute directly, the models show that it only needs a very small amount over and above what can naturally be managed, to nudge things beyond the tipping point. In all the historical cycles prior to the mid 1800's, mankind's contribution was effectively zero, and, of course, the rainforests were intact, and the plankton blooms were perfectly happy in their environment. Oh, and the BBC article does nothing other than to say there are two sides to the argument. Hardly an earth shattering conclusion !

Seconded !