Joensuu

Put's the hack into perspective: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

St George, the 'cooling trend' "FACT" that you've made up, serves to highlight your misunderstanding of the data. Indeed, if you misinterpret the data, and start with the hottest year ever recorded (1998 ), then it stands to reason that the subsequent decade can't be anything but relatively cooler. However, take the same data, remove your political agenda, and a far more accurate picture is painted: Since the hottest year on record (1998 ) we have witnessed: The 12th hottest (1999) The 14th hottest (2000) The 8th hottest (2001) The 4th hottest (2002) The 3rd hottest (2003) The 5th hottest (2004) The 2nd hottest (2005) The 6th hottest (2006) The 7th hottest (2007) and the 10th hottest (2008 ) So since 1998 we've seen 8 of the 10 warmest years on record. 2007 & 2008 were indeed cooler than 2005 or 1998, but anyone who attempts to argue for a 'cooling trend' on the basis of the seventh and tenth hottest years ever recorded is either a lost case (or pursuing their own political agenda). Remove the politics, and engage your brain.

This new research certainly sounds interesting, but I wouldn't start getting too excited until it has had time to be thoroughly peer reviewed. At the moment, it is interesting, and might even have potential, but certainly not yet blown the whole subject wide open! Anyhow, it's all irrelevant at the moment - human caused climate change is currently the only theory which adequately explains the available evidence; this might change given more research. However, currently there isn’t even much of a debate within science. The evidence (and the consensus of opinion) is overwhelming. The only ‘debate’ that is occurring is being conducted in the media by self-interested and politically motivated members of the ‘Anti-Climate Change’ movement - unfortunately it seems you’ve swallowed their nonsense unthinkingly.

I agree, it's an awful state of affairs when energy companies (with a vested interest) pay 'scientists' to attempt to 'prove things that are useful to their interests'. Thankfully a large number of scientists are funded by their positions at universities and via relatively independent governmental grants. Frankly, as human caused climate change is currently the established theory, the rewards for finding evidence against it would significantly outweigh those for finding yet more evidence supporting the theory (i.e. you could build a career out of being the person who actually manages to disprove ACC; whereas barely anyone would notice if you provided yet more evidence to support it). Mainly because the term 'Global Warming' is misleading - while the climate is indeed warming globally, there will be large regional variations. 'Global Warming' was also frequently misunderstood by some as an advantageous occurrence, hence many people still get completely the wrong end of the stick, i.e.:

Pancake, I personally don't discount the potential that there may indeed be a deity; just one who hasn't left any form of tangible evidence. So, if there is no evidence for the existance of something; then there can be no evidence for its non-existance either. Making use of Bertrand Russell's 'flying teapot' scenario: there is just as much evidence for God as there is for a flying teapot orbiting the earth, which nobody has ever seen, and we simply have no evidence for or against it's existance. With the greatest of respect for your views, I have never been able to understand how anyone can maintain a belief in anything (whether teapot or God) for which there is absolutely no evidence. So how do believers manage to square this circle? Because from the outside looking in, belief in the existance of anything that we have no evidence for doesn't seem to be either sensible or logical.

Each to one's own; but how do believers choose between the religions on offer, when they all claim to be right? Give me a flying teapot and a level grounding in science anyday.

I think the true figure for man made CO2 is actually significantly lower than 40%; somewhere around 1-2% is the true figure. If the Government were indeed claiming that 40% of CO2 is anthropogenic they were wrong. However 1-2% may sound small, but it is having a significant impact. True, but these countries also have the largest populations (for industrialised countries). The best way is to represent CO2 on a per capita basis - whereby Luxembourg is by far the most polluting country on earth (with the USA second). As most of the European countries are relatively small it would be fairer to amend you sentance to say, 'Most of the anthropogenic CO2 is produced by wealthier counties - predominately in North America, Europe, South Asia and East Asia.' (However even that would overlook the significant C02 per capita produced by countries like Brazil and Australia!) Methane (alongside other gases which have an impact) is indeed factored into scientific thinking. The problem you have correctly identified is that some gases (such as methane) have more impact than others. As a result science needed to establish a base measurement: CO2. That is why carbon trading schemes make use of 'CO2 equivalents'. So yes, you don't normally hear scientists talk specifically about the impact of methane - but often it isn't being ignored, instead it is being included within discussion on 'carbon dioxide equivalents' (which of course the media simplify to just 'CO2').

Absolutely! For me there are three categories: 1) People who understand scientific method and agree that human caused climate change is currently the only interpretation of the evidence. 2) People who don't understand science; are easily manipulated by whatever they read in the Sun, or whatever Clarkson says (aka idiots). 3) People who understand scientific method and secretly agree that human caused climate change is currently the only interpretation of the evidence; but who have a selfish reason for attempting to distort public opinion (oil/money/unwillingness to give up 4x4 etc). These few individuals malliciously attempt to hamper the process of science, and sadly seem to have struck a vein with the more lazy and selfish in society.

Scares me how many people don't understand science. Either you agree with the process of scientific method (and therefore agree with the current scientific concensus the human caused climate change is occuring); or you disagree with the process of scientific method - thereby making your posts on the subject erm complete and utter 'non-science'.

What is all this talk of Socialists? We have been governed for the past 12 years by a nasty conservative party dressed in red, and are about to be governed by another identical nasty party dressed in blue.

Nobody's perfect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Criticisms_of_Mother_Teresa

My goodness talking hands...

So you're going to vote BNP to keep, erm, who exactly out? As (thankfully) the BNP aren't running in the top three parties in any polls south of Watford, could you explain how voting BNP could in any way be considered 'tactical'? Nope! Hurrah. Let’s work hard to keep it that way You certainly didn't. So what on earth is a 'Totalitarian Welfare State' then? Certainly google doesn't seem to know, throwing up links to both Soviets and Nazi's! I can't say I've personally read the BNP manifesto. But I can say that to date I have strongly disagreed with every policy of theirs I have had the misfortune to hear (not just race, also environment, homosexuality etc). I agree that the main parties have lost their way, (useless the lot of them), but I have yet to see any 'common sense' from Griffin and his ilk. Right now Britain needs a socially oriented egalitarian government with a focus on efficiency (spending as little as possible as wisely as possible). We certainly don't want a fascist party. Over the past 12 years Britain has voted for an increasingly totalitarian right wing party called 'New Labour' who frankly have done little to benefit the country in their time in power. Britain is about to elect an almost identikit party in the 'Conservatives'. The BNP are definitely different to both; but they are also without doubt much, much worse than the nastiest fringes of either. [bTW, does anybody have any idea what a 'Totalitarian Welfare State' is? Is it just a something said by people of the extreme right to describe their dislike of being taxed to help support the disadvantaged?]

Yup, sounds like a crude, but basic correct definition to me. (Obviously, you'll need to replace the specific national-centric variations with something more generic and more specifically related to race, but it sure is a good first attempt )

Cheers for the compliment... however, I respectfully disagree with you. I don't see any evidence to support the view that 'it was set up to hang Griffin' is any shape or form. I honestly feel that this was as reflective of the mindset of the country as would be possible to broadcast (a true reflection of the mindset of the country, and Griffin and his chums would have been lucky to get out of Broadcasting House!). I also disagree with you that the 'BBC....[is] a left wing organisation'. In my opinion they are attempting to stay as neutral as possible, representing all sides impartially. Unfortunately the right wing political ground occupied by the three main parties means that by comparison the BBC's neutral independent position is often perceived as being 'left wing'. It would be a sad state of affairs if a neutral independent position has become incorrectly perceived to be left wing.

Of course they were. How else could the BBC be sure that everyone was fairly represented? If they hadn't and only interested parties (ie NF, AntiFacists, and minority groups) had got in, the BBC would have been in deep trouble!

Close, but no biscuit - 7.9% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom Anyhow, the QT audience is a proportion of the population of the local town it is broadcast from: in this case London. Meaning that if the audience was representative of the population of the city it should have been c. 30.6% non-white. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London I feel that this is about the percentage of the audience who were non-white last night: a good example of the fair representation. ~Edit - just noticed Scummer's post above, beat me to it. Gingeletiss - QT reflects the diversity of whichever city/town it broadcasts from each week - are you suggesting they should change their rules just for the BNP?

You don't 'arf hear some crazy theories! Ever tried googling 'grassy knoll' and '9-11 conspiricy'?

Ooh a minority tax... Nice idea Stu. Can we tax people who are overweight too? How about people with awful curly hair? Personally I think all racists should be publicly humilated on the pitch at half time.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of voting! You're not mean't to put the cross against the party you don't want in power... What do you mean by 'Totalitarian Welfare State'? I can only assume you are suggesting we've moved too far towards Communism? If you haven't noticed, 'new' labour are an authoritarian centre right party. Check out where Political Compass places the BNP... thats right, they're the closest party this country has to Communism (or as you put it a 'Totalitarian Welfare State'). So if you like your racist commies, why not vote BNP... (which of course makes the crass assumption that you'd be voting for the party you wanted to see in power, my bad!) eh? Like that makes any sense!

Would you 'shop' a Saints fan from an ethnic minority, or is your racism and support of violence only extended to neutrals and the followers of other teams? You have some serious issues

Agree, while noble in it's intentions the Afgan conflict appears to be intensifying. I'm not sure how it can conclude in a positive way for the west. Afganistan's problems are unlikely to be solved by the current effort. Also agree with cutting civilian numbers. Central government employs far too many people, some of whom are hard working and talented; many I fear are employed to keep the unemployment numbers low! (it only costs a few grand more per head, and if they can fill in a few spreadsheets then bonus...)

Of course extra immigration wouldn't actually help increase future tax revenue, thereby supporting pensions? However you are correct that something has to give. Step forward the two most expensive government departments: social services, & MoD. Welfare reform is needed. It needs to be very generous (at first), but with massive incentives to find employment. Perhaps everybody gets 24-36 generously supported months (in their life), after which benefits tail off sharply to breadline. MoD needs a heafty reduction. We have the second most expensive military globally, paid for by the 5th biggest economy... (with the 24th best education system).... Frankly the numbers don't stack up, why are our priorites so wrong? We simply can't afford to involve ourselves in overseas warfare any longer - defence and nothing but defence, should be the MoD's remit.

It's quite simple: everything is tolerated except intolerance. No law should exist unless it protects someone or something from another's excess. Question us liberals ask ourselves is how can we tolerate the intolerence of the BNP? Interesting how tolerence tends to increases with education. (just as crime increases with poverty). Instead of censoring the BNP, we need to tackle the root of the problem, namely illinformed misunderstanding. By all means vote for whoever you wish; if the BNP then recognise that you are voting for a party who represent everything that is wrong with this country. Nobody who is proud of the diverse heritage and hard-fought freedoms of this country would ever consider voting for racist authoritarians. How ironic you choose to brand yourself 'St George' when you so clearly stand against this country.

I don't care much for left or right... it's all economics to me. But anyone above the central line has a scary fondness for totalitarian governments; a fear of what other people get up to in their own homes; an intolerance towards communities they don't understand. The centre of the political compass grid is anything but balanced.... For example it is likely that someone above the centre line 'Strongly disagreed' with most of the following: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations [strongly Disagree? Then you put profits before people? Selfish IMO] All authority should be questioned. [strongly Disagree? Agree with the Government all the time do you? Thoughtless IMO] Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.[strongly Disagree? You love you're Orwellian Police States! Nazi IMO] A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption. [strongly Disagree? Homophobic too? Bigot IMO] And it is likely that someone above the centre line 'Strongly agreed' with most of the following: I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. [Agree? I honestly don't believe you. Who actually has ever agreed with everything their country has done? Naive nationalist IMO] Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races. [Agree? I'm sure you'll be glued to Question Time this evening] The enemy of my enemy is my friend. [Agree? Crazy... mutual hatred is never a good foundation for a relationship... e.g. the CIA getting into bed with Saddam!] Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal. [Agree? Sexist religious nut IMO] An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. [Agree? Thug IMO] All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind. [Agree? National Front IMO] You cannot be moral without being religious. [Agree? On what grounds? Because the invisible being said so? Fruit loop IMO] No one can feel naturally homosexual. [Agree? Then what do homosexuals feel then? Unnaturally homosexual? Prejudiced IMO]