Whitey Grandad

My missus had been to plenty and she can't stand football. All away games: Man Utd (twice) Leeds Oldham Nottingham Forest Ipswich Blackburn Norwich Spurs Sheffield Wednesday Sheffield Utd Torquay And others I can't remember. She came for the travel and to see 't north of England. She usually did the crossword.

I should of course add.. Getting promotion and realising that Markus wasn't there to see it.

Joy... So many Three successive wins against Man U Any win against Man U Seeing Markus's face at Wembley Promotion Promotion again Dellhurst Park Seeing my daughter's face every time we scored. Sadness... That interminable season under Poortvliet et. al. The football under Branfoot. Joy/sadness... The last match at the Dell (Arsenal) I forgot amusement... CMFG's goal at Ipswich. Even the maestro himself was laughing at it.

At what time is it all called off?

Might be. Played in South Korea for a bit before ending up at Sheff Weds. http://bornoffside.net/2013/05/whatever-happened-to-southamptons-2003-fa-cup-final-team/

Or Boycott. I can only see one outcome here.

I blame them for everything. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a correlation between the number of McDonald's and the rise in global temperatures.

I'm not saying I don't like it, just that it's meaningless. How many Chinese were involved? There are over 1,359,130,000 of them and they are the ones who would need to be convinced of the need to change.

We all are.

I'm not completely daft, my house is 120ft above sea level.

There should be a master socket where the phone line enters the house. The ADSL filter plugs straight into that. The telephone extension cable goes into one socket and the modem into the other. They will be marked.

There are plenty of precedents which cannot be explained by human activity, or anything else for that matter.

Sounds like your ADSL filter. It should be the first thing on your phone line where it enters you house.

Have a look at the results of the experiment. I was particularly referencing the introduction which shows climate variations in historical times. Remember, this is a scientist who is seeking to justify funding for his research.

The natural events that occurred previously far outweigh the influence of man. One big meteor strike, one or long-term volcanic event, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps CO2 is the finest natural fertiliser that exists so the increased levels in the atmosphere increase plant growth. http://www.ibtimes.com/deserts-are-greening-carbon-dioxide-fertilization-satellite-imagery-saw-arid-regions-bloom-photo You will find arguments on both sides as to how significant this is. Let's not forget that if CO2 levels are reduced (some chance!) then crop yields will also suffer. Replacing a CRT TV by an LED one will save some energy in their use but you also need to look at the energy used in their construction. And don't forget that during the winter the CRT TVs will also be heating the house so it's not all wasted.

Lets take a few monuments to think about this 'vote'. A figure of 97% is plucked out if the air. Who's going to vote? Is it a case of 'we asked 100 leading climate scientists and...'? Is it one man, one vote? What if one organisation has ten scientists and another only one, does the former have ten times the influence? Should it be a weighted vote, by money spent, time spent, reputation...? But more importantly, are the Chinese involved, because without them it's all rather pointless. I maintain the pragmatic approach, if the climate is changing then we should be looking at ways to deal with it, not looking at who to blame.

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ If you've got a spare few minutes the first ten or fifteen are worth watching:

Indeed I do. I just put up a couple of examples to show that there is a debate on this. The comments are worth following up.

I'm not denying it, just the degree to which it affects the climate. There are other factors, such as solar high-energy activity (I'm not talking about solar irradiation) that are quite possibly/probably more significant and that also explain the variations in global temperatures over previous centuries. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html Some discussion here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

There is an argument that CO2 levels follow a rise in temperatures. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader because we're getting away from my contention that scientific opinion is not something that you can put to a vote.

Almost everything that you might read on an Internet forum

This is alarmist claptrap. If the world were that unstable it would have fried a long time ago. There are other explanations for the recent perceived increase.

My point exactly. At least some people could stop feeling guilty about it.

What do you mean? What has changed in the last ten years? (I know the Earth's temperature hasn't).

That was the consensus at the time.