buctootim

After a lay off you have to build up the programme gradually - starting off with low intensity excercises and building up endurance. Going straight in to a programme of heavy weights, sudden acceleration (ive no idea if this happened) and jumping off bridges into ice cold water after long runs (I know this did) will likely end up with all kinds of strains and soft tissue injuries.

ordained

Nits spread through all schools on a regular basis, especially the smaller ones (my daughters six) because they have their heads in contact with other all the time. Anyway nits prefer clean hair to dirty because its easier for them to get a hold. Parents of small children know this, ergo Dune never will.

So you think its a conspiracy rather than RL looking after himself in the close season and then picking up injuries by doing too much too soon? Why doesnt that surprise me?

My daughters got them. I just found one in my hair. Lovely Christmas present. This lady has a particularly bad infection.

No they weren't. You could maybe argue that Steve Redgrave was in a different category for winning in four successive Olympics, but not them.

I just watched the Lacey fight for the first time. Amazing performance by Calzaghe. Somehow, although I was aware of him, his career passed me by compared to Benn, Eubank and Hatton. Its not true to say he's not been recognised though. Calzaghe was given an MBE early on and later 'promoted' to a CBE which is just one knotch below a knighthood. Most knighthoods are lifetime achievement awards and very rarely given to people in their 30s. Maybe he will get it yet.

Good plan. Is the next step to get a Rhino to stop the dog crapping in the garden?

smirk. 39) 124, two to the power of six (or seven, somewhere round there. Only an engineer would notice, not a scientist though. Luckily there aren't any around)

No-one cares Dune because you arent in a position to make any decisions that count. You are the thickie on the fringes of society who never quite gets it.

You're right Phil - sustainable sourcing of products by purchasing professionals is the only way to go. The issues are too complicated to expect consumers to know which kind of wood /fish/ tv to buy and from where. Wal Mart have made a start. Whats interesting is that they dont do it to be good guys, they do it because the embedded carbon content is closely matched with energy use - if they force suppliers to reduce energy they think they can screw them down on the price. That is bigger news than it sounds. Wal Mart spend £180 billion each year on product, 80% of it with China. They are China's fifth biggest trading partner - bigger than the nation of Canada. http://www.bnet.com/blog/energy/walmart-will-force-suppliers-to-cut-carbon-use/3264

Its true isnt it? You dont have phd, most likely at best a MSc. Have you held a position in scientific research? Im not criticising being a professional engineer, its worthy profession - but to claim you are better qualified to comment than a research scientist working in their own field is risible.

Nice try but being jobbing engineer with a degree and membership of a professional body does not rank you above most research scientists. You are short a phd and an entire career dedicated to pure research - calculating RSJ loads doesnt match up.

Dont bother. "Henrik Svensmark Rebuttal to Svensmark assertions: Svensmark has received a fair amount of attention in the denialist world. But why? He says he is being ignored. But Why? Is it because there is a great conspiracy of scientists trying to hide the truth about galactic cosmic rays? Or is that that Svensmarks conclusions were not supported by the work presented? As it turns out, his conclusions were not sufficiently supported. Peter Laut found errors in their paper and published a paper addressing the corrections. When the errors are removed the conclusions and assumptions of Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen simply do not stand. Solar can not account for modern global warming. Simply put, galactic cosmic rays (GCR's - paleo and modern measurements) do not correlate with the rise in global mean temperature. The now well established facts are in the connection between greenhouse gases, attribution and radiative forcing. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere account well for the current climate forcing." http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark

Congratulations on totally missing the point. Whitey trotted out one of sceptics hoary old myths that in the 1960s and 1970s scientists were predicting the next Ice Age. They werent. I simply showed that wasnt true. They werent wrong then and arent wrong now.

Come on Jamie. Do tells us how climate research was actually framed in the 1960s

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus Thomas C. Peterson NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina William M. Connolley British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom John Fleck Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico Abstract Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Early climate science was bugged by inaccurate media reports. They would produce a range of scenarios but the media would focus on the dramatic high impact but low probability scenarios, ignoring the more sedate core projections.

Its not ignored http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/clouds.html http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/clouds.php http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/8068623/Telescope-buried-a-mile-under-the-Antarctic-ice-to-find-source-of-cosmic-rays.html

What the East Anglian climate unit did was wrong and foolish. It was a relatively minor episode by two junior researchers. The IPCC report was published in 2007, 2 and a half years prior to this event. Using that event to cast douybt on the whole of climate science is like saying the Toyota accelerator pedal issue discredits cars as a form of transport. Your assertions about the IPCC not considering solar and deforestation are just plain wrong. At least have the decency to read the report before making claims about it. Yes other environmental issues are important too. No-one has said its either / or. There are a LOT of initiatives to protect remaining rainforest. The Brazilian goverment is quite good but has major problems with illegal logging. Indonesia is corrupt and allows clearance of virgin forest to grow palm oil whist claiming it is not. Best options is to buy wood products with the FSC logo and avoid palm oil if you can.

The CRT screen thing isnt accurate either. http://www.nulifeglass.com/uk-crt-tv-television-computer-screen-recycling-process/what-happens-to-your-crt-tv-computer-screen.htm

Thats a very confused post Phil. What does it mean?

I know it too, its been mentioned on the boards loads. Its an alright name - better than Tristram.

The polluter pays is a good principle for a free market. There are early stage attempts to measure how much carbon is 'embedded' in producing each product and put a price on it. So a plastic toy produced by a manufacturer in Birmingham using electricity sourced from renewables and delivered to warehouses in London using hydrogen cell delivery trucks would have a lower level of embedded carbon that something flown in from a brown coal powered factory in China. The arguments between countries at the moment is how much each should control emissions and how much each should pay. Everyone agrees emissions need to be controlled and fast - but no-one wants to put themselves at a competetive disadvantage by going first or giving away too much too soon.

Jesus Phil where have you been? All that work has been done. In 2007 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced different scenarios based on exactly that - different levels of growth / carbon intensity /energy mix and efficiency / population etc. Thats why the possible spread - 1.5-6 degrees is so wide - it depends on what we do. 1.5 to 2 degrees is already locked in based on what we have already put into the atmosphere. Updated projections are being worked on currently. I think the new report is out in April 2011.