Joensuu

The lowest Obama's ratings have yet got to is 48% - He has a long way to go before he hits the low twenties like Nixon, Truman and Dubya did! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Quite right! Glad the USA has recognised that Climate Change isn't a trivial issue. There's certainly no reason for anyone to be throwing a party (celebrating climate change would be a bit like celebrating global poverty, or mass murder).

It's often struck me as strange too, I mean, why would anyone want the public to be heavily regulated, but companies to be as unrestricted as possible? I think it stems from people on the right assuming that 'other' people cause problems, and that more restrictive personal legislation will only affect 'other' people. Of course, as soon as someone on the right is caught breaking the law they quickly begin to wish that they had a bit more individual freedom. Likewise, it's always fun to watch 'not in my backyard' Tories using every bit of corporate legislation that they can unearth, to try and stop a wind farm being constructed in their neck of the woods. It's almost as if they abandon their illogical political stance whenever it suits them, which leads me to believe that the stance isn't genuinely held, and is simply a position of convenience. [NB - at least libertarian Tories have a consistent position.] I believe that the key word is 'tax'. When you boil it down, the left/right debate is about how selfish you are: people on the left tend to put people before profit; whereas on the right the opposite is true. People on the right, don't actually want to see unregulated companies combined with and restrictive personal laws, they simply don't like paying tax to support others. [NB - of course people on the right don't mind a jot about restrictive social legislation, so long as they themselves aren't restricted ('What you mean the speed limit applies to me too?')] Anyhow, whether on the left or right, anyone above the centre line in the chart has a scary fondness for being regulated and restricted. I'm not sure whether they have some form of image of themselves being different from the masses (e.g. brandishing a whip on a slave galley), or whether they masochistically love being ordered about - either way, they must be scary messed up people.

Good question. Maggie inherited a mess of a country, took hold of it and shook it virtually limb from limb. She is currently vilified because hundreds of thousands had to suffer unemployment, while her economy rollercoastered and inflation went through the roof. Many will claim that her tough decisions underpin the stability that Blair inherited. However I'd argue that while the unions needed to be stomped on, much of the heavy industry (which has since shown it could still turn a profit) should have been allowed to continue. I believe that her real legacy is yet to come; with the Far East moving ever higher up the value chain (now bettering the US on number of patents issued p.a., and number of doctorates), our tertiary service-based economy is going to come under increasing pressure. Quite simply, if China were to out 'tech' us, what on earth would be be able to sell? I feel we might find ourselves wishing we hadn't closed down all of the heavy industry in such haste. Blair on the other hand inherited a country looking very healthy. Always a Tory (in red clothing), his first three years were very successful, seeing the introduction of a minimum wage, peace in Northern Ireland (we miss you Mo), and a steadily reducing national debt. Then at in 2000 something changed and Blair morphed into a megalomaniac. Almost overnight the taps on spending were fully opened, followed by further 'investment' via PFI initiatives (AKA, getting future governments to pay more than the going rate for new schools and hospitals (while 'Nu Lab' take the plaudits)). In the following 9 years, government spending increased by c. 133% (some of which obviously inflationary; most of which massively wasteful). Then in 2003, Blair sucked up to Bush, and we were of course led into an illegal and expensive conflict - what did the House of Commons do? Well, spend more time debating fox hunting than Saddam. By the end of 2003 it was clear to all that property prices were stupidly out of control, thankfully in 11 Downing Street the Chancellor buried his head. Financially the country was in an appalling condition, but hey it's the "end of boom and bust" - so why worry eh? So who messed us up more? Blair's crippling debt vs. Maggie's trashing of the only industries which we could have fallen back on to try to pay it off! And the moral of our story? Never trust a Tory (whatever colour their party).

Hmmm, but the greater public buy vast quantities of Ok and Heat magazines and watch programmes with Katie Price in. They don't always get it right. ...nor of course did Winston, who royally messed up by opting to revert back to the gold standard in 1925: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Suspending_gold_payments_to_fund_the_war [For me it has to be a tie between Attlee and Lloyd George (especially love his womanising ways) ]

There are a lot of obvious problems, especially if the ownership of the stadium were equal, but: If Saints (well Leibherr) were the outright owner of an extended SMS, and Pompey were struggling to find somewhere to play once Krap Nottaf is sold from under them, I can see a rosy arrangement whereby they could rent SMS, increasing our income quite significantly. If the contract for the groundshare were worded in such a way that any damages caused to SMS while it is being used by Pompey need to be paid for in full (by the blue few), then I can't see a problem. Imagine Pompey having to play games in a red & white stadium, emblazoned with Saints logos. Imagine their fans knowing that their very attendance at Pompey games is helping to improve the Saints squad. And worse still if they decide to rip up seats then they get hit by a big fat invoice... I'd love it.

Just for you Minty:

Thought I'd repost (and slightly adapt ) Jonny Bognor's graph from the 'Tories' thread... might help to explain the irrational position's StG and Dune have adopted:

Yup, but I think you should look back at Coventry... check out Wiki "He made his debut, in the final game of the 2000-01, a 0–0 draw against Bradford City"

Option 1 - a great choice for paranoid loonies e.g. Option 2 - the only position to be in if you are in any way logical and caring. Option 3 - Perfect choice for the self interested (e.g. Jeremy_Clarkson) I think there might be another option though. What about somebody who is clever enough to understand that Option 2 is scientifically correct, but who has an ulterior motive (normally oil dollars) for arguing against ACC (e.g. Stephen_McIntyre, Joe_Barton etc)

Good morning George, you sound well today. I think you should check the reasons the scientists give before dashing to an incorrect conclusion! Try this: http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise

Edit - think I was wrong, but couldn't remember us being out of the relegation zone since april(ish) 08 (did we pull out of it at all last season?)

While he was shocking for us, I do hope he manages to play again...

Now I don't know anything about you St George (aside from your inability to post coherently). Anyhow, I doubt for a second that I'm right, but looking at a list of New Orleans' largest employers, I was just wondering whether you might have a vested interest? 4,600 Schwegmann Bros. Supermarket 3,100 Hibernia Corp. (banking) 3,026 First Commerce Corp. of Louisiana 3,000 South Central Bell 2,700 Shell Oil Company 2,400 Martin Marietta Manned Space System 1,750 Exxon Corporation 1,150 Union Carbide Corp. 1,305 Whitney National Bank 1,300 Hilton Hotels 1,100 Ruth's Chris Steak House

Really, we must have all collectively missed those posts. Would you be so kind as to point them out to us? Is that doubt creeping in? Are you okay? Shall we call you a doctor? You appear to be having some form of breakdown...

Are you going to answer Minty's post?

Love this quote: "This is the smoking iceberg that fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism." I'm sure St George or Dune or someone said that on an earlier of this thread

Dune so you're advocating that in order to allow us to build on more flood plains we should mess up more rivers? Wouldn't it be more sensible simply not to build on flood plains? [NB, I don't understand what this has got to do with 'lefties'. Are these the same 'lefties' like George Osborne who proposed tax breaks for recycling yesterday? Never saw George as a leftie! ACC is a serious issue right across the political spectrum. Try dropping the political chip on your shoulder if you want you're argument to be taken seriously...] PS - St George, why not answer Minty's question? I know it won't be easy, as you'd need to read what someone else has written, then think for yourself (gulp, a post without being able to rely on cutting and pasting nonsense... Scary huh?)

. I think you misunderstand apocalyptic: A server full of thousands of leaked emails which almost entirely confirm the reality of climate change (of which 20 or so sound strange when read out of context), nope that's not apocalyptic. No attempt by humanity to reduce co2 emissions... Well according to the collective understanding of the greatest minds on the planet, that could indeed be truely apocalyptic. Cheers for sounding more and more like a crank...

DO NOT deliberately start arguments. This is known as "trolling". It is usually very easy to spot, and offending threads will be locked or deleted. In response: Edit... a better explaination of Trenberth's 'email' can be found here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-emails-ncar-kevin-trenberth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

'lefties'? Please keep your own politics out of science. As a liberal I couldn't give a damn what either 'left' or 'right' have to say - I'd rather deal in rational science. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist who disputes this! [straw man alert?] Agreed. The natural climate has indeed varied roughly in the way you point out. However these natural variations weren't as extreme, or as rapid as the current observed change in global mean temperature. Yup. That's a prerequisite to understanding what's going on... but... .... where did that leap of logic come from? That's certainly not something that can be substantiated by the scientific evidence. Perhaps some 'fringe' papers might back this up, but it is far from being the accepted consensus view. It'd be more accurate to change your sentence to 'A tiny minority of scientists consider that man has no influence on climate whatsoever'. HTH

Here's Gavin Schmit's take on Real Climate's editorial policy: St George, do you still think that Real Climate shouldn't be moderated?

Hmm, scandal indeed St George. How dare the scientists at Real Climate attempt to ensure that the comments sections are free from 'non-science' rubbish. I'm sure you'll have noticed that RC comments include plenty of decenting voices (perhaps the editorial policy is primarily to reduce repetition, swearing, and blantantly nonsence posts?). How shocking! Not sure why you describe Mann as infamous, seen as his claims have stood up to rigourous right-wing investigation (ie the Republicans and fossil fuel industry nit-picked the 'hockey stick', and what they found altered nothing about the shape of the historical climate record... 'infamous' indeed!

This St George character has an immature posting style. His idea of a 'debate' involves posting something inaccurate and controversial (supported by some 'non-science' links of course); then when disproved and argued into a corner, he finds a different line of cranky rubbish to post instead. I can only assume that this is his way of accepting defeat on each attempted line of argument? Normally such trolling is best ignored. However in this case the subject is too important to allow such mis-information to be posted unchallenged.

Having read through quite a few of these hacked emails I haven't yet seen anything unexpected. Seems like a group of frustrated scientists who are letting off a bit of steam in private emails. Don't blame them at all, especially given the politically motivated non-science they have to endlessly unpick. Mind you, if all you 'non-science' brigade are right, and the whole human caused climate change theory has been manufactured by governments, you'd have to give it up to the governments; when would they have ever shown such remarkable coheirent efficency? Blimey, they can't even keep the lid on their own expenses, so how on earth have they managed so successfully to manipulate virtually every study into the climate in the past few decades? Honestly, you might just be able to fake a moon landing, fabricate an assasination, perhaps even deceive a nation into thinking some 'planes' hit some towers, but manipulating the output of almost every environmental scientist in almost every country over such an extended period of time, why this must surely be the greatest cover up ever. Anyone against established science is either a certified loony or has a political agenda.