buctootim

Did we? I thought we did the opposite - signed quality players who had already made their name, reputation and money and fancied a challenge. Bit different to signing a bunch of arses who need rehabilitation before anyone else will touch them.

People who read the Daily Express should hang their heads in shame.

Anyone really reckon that a tuning oufit in Oxforshire has discovered how to get more power for less fuel, presumably something which the original manufacturer could have done but thought "nah **** it lets make it slower and heavier on petrol". Remapping gets more power at the expense of higher fuel consumption - but without upgrading crank brakes etc to cope with higher power - plus the engine usually becomes really peaky and a pain to drive in normal use. Your insurance will be higher / invalidated if they find out. If you want a faster car why not buy one?

Never been drunk and nearly fallen in your early 20s, really? Only difference between you me and Dan Seabourne is likely luck and an uneven paving slab. Yes he may well have been an arse when ****ed, as are many people in life and at work who dont have the alcohol excuse.

I thought in the BBC interview Adkins hinted he would ship Forte out in the January window.

Also wait till you get the job offer (or at least its clear you are preferred candidate) before you start to haggle.

Maynard can name his price and a team will pay it in the summer. It arguably makes more sense to sign him on a free, pay him £40,000pw and sell him for £4m in two years time (effectively getting a free player for two years) than to sign someone for £1m pay him £10,000pw and sell him for £1m (cost £1m).

Amazing. Electrcity and magnets have fascinated since childhood. Isnt that the principle MagLev trains are based on?

Indeed. So given that we don't know what the sun is going to do but we do know we are adding more insulation to the house and that the temperature is going up uncomfortably, is it not wise to stop insulating?

Thats the crux of it though. Adair Turner (Former Chief Economist at World Bank and DG of the CBI) reckons the nett cost to GDP of moving to a low carbon economy would be 0.9% over 40 years - ie as a result of cutting emissions by 80% we would be just as rich by April 2051 as we would otherwise have been by January 2051 doing nothing. Insulating houses well is a no-brainer - they are much more comfortable to live in. Hydrogen to power cars might be more expensive to produce than petrol at current oil prices - but the erratic price per barrel of oil and ther duty on petrol has much more impact on the price than the costs of production.

All ruminants produce methane. Ruminants need to eat plants. Growing plants take up CO2. Cows digesting the plants release it again. Arguably the nett effect is zero (depending on what you think the natrual population of ruminants would be and what the pasture would be used for otherwise. Volcanoes do produce large amounts of carbon. They also emit large amounts of ash and particles in the upper atmosphere which blocks sunlight and therefore heat. The Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 and the subsequent 'year without summer' is worth reading about.

You can be brave and stupid. Would I be brave enough to stay in a country where NATO and 10s of thousands of armed men were looking to kill me?.....no.

The sun is the heating system in the house. The carbon is the insulation. Both are important.

Its the paunch in a tight polycotton shirt the women go for.

Cant understand Gaddafi's logic in not taking the asylum offers made to him from several other countries. Whatever his crimes you cant fault his bravery in staying in Libya

Its only raging in the heads of people who refuse to read the data. You can and do put a negative spin on almost everything to fit with what you want to believe. Thats your perogative, but it doesnt change whats happening.

I agree about the natural cycles, disagree that the man made effect is inconsequential - simply because we as a human race have on a very small tolerance for temperature change. Without any atmospheric CO2 at all global temperatures would be around 18 degrees celcius colder than currently - making normal human life anywhere north of say Morocco impossible. We need some CO2. It is also likely that without man made additional CO2 being pumped out, we would by now be heading slowly into a new mini ice age. The problem is that the rate we are changing the climate, and the long period of latency (ie effects of carbon already put out won't be felt in full for 100 years) far exceeds our understanding of the impacts. In effect we are driving 90mph round a blind bend hoping there isnt anything in the way.

You do know NASA isnt a subsidiary of the University of East Anglia I hope.

Exxon made far more money available to climate scientists to prove man made climate change was a myth. They gave up around 5 years ago when the evidence became incontrovertible.

Like most sceptic sweeping statements, easily provable to be plain wrong. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Monckton has been shown up time and again to be to be factually wrong and um, lets say disengenuous.

Never understood the mentality that because something happens naturally, then we shouldn't try and stop man made creations of the same thing. Yes climate changes naturally. It also changes for man made reasons. Climate change is hugely disruptive and expensivec - far more so than controlling carbon emissions. Some people die of natural causes, some get murdered. Doesn't seem to me to be a sound rationale for doing nothing.

Its actually worse than that in Thailand imo. Ive seen crowds gather to watch a motorcyclist writhe on the ground with his arm ripped off and another to take pictures of someone whose head was run over by a truck.

Truly a moronic post of monumental proportions. So you cant expect passersby to pull a dying toddler out of the road and call an ambulance because there isnt a free health service? Think you have spent too long in similalr society where abuse of others is condoned / excused in exchange for some sunshine and tax free income.

This is a good deal if you want fixed. You can find lower headline interest rates, but with big fees attached. Basically it only makes sense to pay a £1,800 arrangement fee to benefit from a lower interest rate for two or three years if you have a huge mortgage. http://www.moneysupermarket.com/mortgages/details.aspx?productId=1017&selectedProductGroupType=3&enquiryid=3499780&passcode=73912434-ac9e-458c-a1ea-bf75a7b3b9b2