buctootim

We have. Fantastic defence this season, still not firing properly upfront though. Dont know if its even possible to have both.

No, his desperate need for attention means he can't.

We're not playing badly. The league leaders playing at home are edging it thats all. Without Boruc's howler we'd be drawing.

No more so than Pastor Patron

Ive tried three and this is by far the best http://Www.firstrowsports.bz stream 3

looked pre-arranged to me. Lallana didnt seem surprised to be coming off.

Nice try. Happer: "we're interested in the mechanisms that limit the performance of optical pumping systems, such as atomic clocks, magnetometers, and laser guide-star adaptive optics systems."

Wanyama doing well

Got a way to go before we get that desperate

Ive got 72mbs and its still buffering almost non stop. edit. Has settled down now - good quality and no probs

Wonder why Yoshida has dropped down the pecking order.

Good interview. Id rather we bring through our own young players and not sign more imports, even if it costs us a few places in the league for the next few seasons. It will pay dividends in the long run.

Lets summarise where we've got to. GM has neatly listed and cited for us the combined might of the climate sceptics marshalled against every recognised climate or atmospheric science organisation in the world - such rabid headbangers as NASA, the Met Office (part of the Ministry of Defence btw), the United Nations, OECD and the World Bank. The leading scientific lights holding the beacon of truth against the liberal hysteria / conspiracy are: Andrew Montford: A BSc in Chemistry 25 years ago and has worked as an accountant since Four dead physics professors, the most recent of whom died aged 96 in 2003 and one live one. Prof Happer at Princeton is indeed a serious academic but his background has nothing at all to do with climate science. Luboš Motl: A junior academic with no history of working in climate science. Harvard sacked him in 2007 for making unsubstantiated criticisms of others work. He has not held a university position since. Dr Arthur Robinson: Has not worked at any established academic or scientific establishment since 1973. Founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1981 which sounds grand until you realise it is basically an industrial estate warehouse in a town of 1,200 people. He is the person responsible for starting the 'scientific' petition supposedly signed by 30,000 academics against climate change hysteria. In fact most are just members of the public. The most recognised signatories are the Spice Girls (which indicates how long ago it was). This is a picture of the Oregon Institute of Medicine and Science at Cave Junction in Oregon. The three 'faculty' members are stood outside. http://www.oism.org/

Thats the premise the insurance industry is based on. You pay a small premium now to ensure a catastrophe doesn't wipe you out. You have any insurance GM, or just hope for the best?

Seriously? A critique by an ex assistant physics professor who was fired by Harvard for making unjustified and unfounded criticisms of others work - and who hasnt published since his firing in 2007? That's the best you can come up with? http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=5497111 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/lubo-motl.html

Very pretty copy and pasting GM. There was no need though, the list was given in the report. As you say, this isn't a peer reviewed paper - just a review of 132 peer reviewed papers. Bart Simpson reviews Einstein, Newton, Fleming, Crick & Watson if you like. You should do one yourself, its easy. Anyway, more usefully - here's the link to a rather more credible rebuttal. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

Lomborg is a political scientist - he is primarily interested in global problems like health and nutrition. I think you may have misunderstood what he believes. Lomborg says "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem we need to fix". His concern is that climate change policies will penalise the poor. Its basically an argument about how you use resources to fix immediate problems now, as opposed to growing problems for the future - like climate change. Its fundamentally socialist - that the rich energy intense countries should use the money spent on climate change on the developing world's poor instead. He says climate change doesn't matter if you're dead - which is a fair point. Do you agree the west should be spending more on foreign aid Whitey?

Well you're sorted then. Get them to give you a primer on climate science.

Ooh, a degree in chemistry, from like a university and stuff? You must be an expert and all. Imagine how much those guys with even more books know, like with a Phd in a more specialised subject and 30 years working in the field - not stirring bulk chemicals with a stick.

Did I say Premier League? I simply quoted the words of a Professor in climate change with a Phd on Atmospheric Biology reviewing a climate change book by a certified acccountant.

You been asleep for 38 years? did you miss this part of the 1975 article - "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.” Try and keep up GM, time moves on. You need help with the video recorder?

Edward Teller was an eminent physicist who was 95 when he died in 2003. In 1997 he wrote "the jury is still out on man made climate change". He was right, it was then - it isnt any more. I'm sure if he was alive now he would have changed his mind when the facts changed. Unlike you.

The report by Andrew Montford? The Andrew Montford whose credentials for challenging a near global scientific consensus on climate change extends to a bachelor's degree in Chemistry and working as an accountant? Righto. In the magazine 'Chemistry World' Professor Nick Hewitt wrote this about Montford's book 'THe Hockey Stick Illusion' - "Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail... but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system. Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better. Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book." I think thats pretty clear. GM so far you've got a guy with a BSc 25 years ago and some dead guys, the leading light of which was 96 when he pegged out and had been retired from his research on solid state materials (ie nothing to do with climate change) for 30 years. His main claims to fame were being an ardent supporter of the Vietnam war and arguing vigorously against the scientific consensus that smoking was damaging to health. Remind me, who was right in that debate? Got anybody alive and knowledgable?

Plus you get to save one weeks grocery bill during Ramadan.

In the war of credibility between the Royal Society, NASA and NOAA plus dozens more on one side versus GM on the other - you have sided with GM. Oh dear Whitey.