Verbal

Well it might help if you had SOME basis for dismissing scientists as in some collective sense corrupt and venal - rather than just relying on some internet-inspired fear frenzy, or in a dunderheaded word, dune. And I'm sorry but what IS the point you're making with nuclear fission - that scientists shouldn't have discovered it in the first place? There is a relationship between science and politics, but - such is the balance of power - it's one in which scientists have little influence, EXCEPT in the sense that their findings and discoveries can provide compelling reasons to do things. For example, the discoveries of the ozone layer and acid rain led directly to multilateral agreements banning the use of CFCs and controlling the emissions of SO2 respectively. These actions were taken because politicians couldn't, in the end, deny what was staring them in the face. And these political measures WERE effective. It would be so with climate change, but for the internet frenzy about a non-existent conspiracy. But then the internet is awash with such garbage - from racists barely concealing their hatred for Obama by claiming he's not American, to pathetic wannabe investigators who have convinced themselves that the planes on 9/11 were actually remote-controlled missiles timed to go off with controlled explosions, and various sideshows about how the moon landings never happened, etc, ad nauseum.

Ha ha! You're wrong of course. But very entertaining. where's my award?

I asked whether you were a dummkopf, not said. You're the one assuming that you are. It's sentENCE !! And I see you often enough but you have nothing of interest to say. The definition, I'd have thought, of tedium.

And what are your scientific qualifications, and what is your evidence for dismissing science as 'in the pockets' of co-conspirators to fool the public? Honestly, I find this beyond nuts.

Then you're talking nonsense unfortunately. The CRU and the WMO are, as you might guess, completely different organisations. There is no suggestion by anyone but you apparently that the WMO has made anything up. Nor actually has the CRU. They wrote some injudicious emails to each other and have been told to respond in a more forthcoming way to FOI requests. However, an official inquiry gave their science a complete clean bill of health.

So you honestly think that climate science is merely a 'guessing game'? Really? Is that what you think science does all day? And again, because you seem still to have missed the point: the bug was a PREDICTION; the WMO figures are for the PAST. Re: 150 years, see my post above!

You're the expert JB - you're the one with film studies honours.

Try reading the science instead of the Daily Mail or that idiot in the Torygraph. A subscription to New Scientist will be a good start.

Who was making the numbers up? Source?

I can't see what predictions about a Millenium bug have to do with an historical record of climate patterns.

I don't know how you could have forgotten about him. Because you're a dummkopf, perhaps? It's certainly one possibility, don't you think? And talking, as we are, about 'tedium' - how come you can manage to post 3,000 times without my noticing anything of interest you've ever said? As Deppo says, this thread, and your starting it, is a classic case of Freudian projection.

When did you do a film studies degree? As someone rightly said much earlier, human population is, rather obviously, the key to understanding climate change now - particularly changes in climatic chemistry (as opposed to 'weather' for the lobally challenged dune). I've not seen ANY climate scientist claim that the earth is subject to climatic variations over time and that these have had natural causes. However, there is a broad scientific consensus that the earth's climate now is being altered by manmade interventions. As for 1,000 - a million years ago...care to guess hat the human population was then? If you do, you'll answer your own question. And what exactly is the point of a thousand years' history of the Prem to Man U's being top now? I think your analogy just self-immolated.

And yet 2010 is set to be one of the three warmest years on record, and the decade 2001-2010 is the warmest decade on record (World Meteorological Organization). These are hard facts dune - not predictions, but measurements of what's actually happened. Hard to swallow for anyone who takes the cretin's view that atmospheric scientists are in some kind of worldwide conspiracy, right?

Did someone drop a brick on your head half way through your post?

Thanks benj, I knew I could count on your support. Now if you could round up the other reactionary, synaptically challenged donkeys on here who've yet to vote, that would be great!

Do shut up, Deppo. I really want this one.

Apart from the need to say it, is there anything wrong with this though? Your suggestion that it's PC gone mad implies you'd rather people in UAE sit in their respective religious trenches.

Getting their Lordships to snort a few lines might liven the place up.

MacIntyre is the best comedian EVER - just like you're the bestest, least racist, least obnoxious and extremely not thick poster EVER. Are we clear now?

I was pulling his leg ESB - it wasn't the point I was making.

To elaborate (because the penny evidently STILL hasn't dropped), this thread is only incidentally a quiz; it's main point is to witness your witless rage. Good job so far!

Whole point of thread.

4) 32 weeks gestation (premature birth) 7) 2 Houses of Parliament (Lords, Commons) 12) 1979 Nobel Peace Prize for Mother Teresa (where were you dune?) 18- Talking 19 to the dozen 21) 4 chambers in a human heart 24) 4 Kings in a card game 29) 2 Es in a Heil Hitler 39) 128, two to the power of seven 52) 3 card monte. 55) The 7 sacraments, Catholic Church

You fibber! I went onto that thread and you didn't offer any kind of boiler help whatsoever. Not a damn thing. As for CERN, is this work being done by scientists or 'scientists'?

Well it seems Jeremy Hunt is more 'entrenched' than he seems. He's actually in the pocket of the Murdochs, breaking civil service rules in pursuit of his obeisance to the Great Rupert (and son). No wonder the Tories got Cable the elbow from this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/22/conservative-links-murdoch-private-meeting