Verbal

+1.

Gretna. A Scottish Prem club relegated all the way down the Scottish divisions, in administration, and now don't exist.

In that case, I'll buy you a season ticket.

So the Echo was probably right then.

Either way, it depends on whether you want to listen to the science or not. The overwhelming - although not total - number of scientists who are climate chemists, physicists and biologists think the evidence is conclusive as to the general pattern. The overwhelming number of sceptics either aren't scientists or are not specialists in climatology. Or, as the Express proves, they are simply incapable of holding an intelligent argument. Given the stakes, which would you choose?

Quite frankly, few if any of us on here is qualified to judge the rights and wrongs of the climate change debate. It is essentially a technical debate conducted most properly by atmospheric chemists and the like. But in any case, the argument about whether climate change is real or imagined is way too narrow. The atmospheric consequences of CO2 emissions aren’t the only issue here. Carbon-based energy is a finite resource. Coal, oil and gas are all running out, and by some reports faster than we are allowed to believe. Therefore the economies that are the least dependent on non-renewable energy sources will have a huge international advantage. It makes sense on economic grounds alone to invest heavily in renewable energy, so that when the supply crunch comes, the lights will still be on. But it’s not just about economics either. Countries that are independent of suppliers of carbon energy are also independent of pressure from those suppliers. So when Russia, for example, threatens the whole of Europe by cutting off gas supplies, we should take this seriously enough to remove Russia from the equation altogether. Or when Saudi Arabia, or some other part of OPEC, decides to exercise its muscle against the West, we can tell them to get lost. Independence from these energy monsters gives us a huge geo-political advantage. Or to put it more starkly, by reducing our dependence on Saudi oil, we are also reducing our indirect funding of terrorism – because there is no doubt that oil revenues in Saudi have driven a huge export of Wahhabi extremism, which in turn led directly to Al Qaeda. But there’s a third reason we should push for renewables and the reduction of our addiction to carbon: it drives technological innovation. One of the small pleasures of watching posters like St George pose on here as defenders of the land of the free is that he represents a point of view – quite strong in the US – that will enfeeble the US to Europe’s advantage. There’s a precedent for this. After the shock of the oil crisis of the early 1970s, when Saudi and OPEC ‘punished’ the West for its support of Israel of the war in 1973, the US and Europe resolved to massively reduce its dependence on oil imported from Arab countries. One of the most effective ways of doing this was to force the car industry to produce smaller cars with more efficient, less petrol thirsty engines. In Europe and Japan, mpg rates improved substantially, as car makers found ever more ingenious ways to squeeze more energy out of smaller, more economical, yet more powerful engines. In the US, by contrast, the hugely powerful carmakers went into lobbying overdrive to prevent this. The result? President Carter’s regulations designed to compete with the Europeans for efficiency savings were torn up by the incoming President Reagan. Reagan also, incidentally had solar panels at the White House torn off the roof, and he cut the Federal renewable energy budget by a staggering 85%. One of the more striking consequences of this vandalism is that American carmakers became the dinosaurs of the world automotive industry. Whereas the Japanese and the Europeans would meet efficiency standards and produce innovative cars that would erode American markets, the US carmakers continued with the hopelessly complacent attitude that they could carry on as before. Result? Crap American car sales dwindled in the US against foreign competition – and regulation elsewhere meant that American cars were generally just too rubbish to export elsewhere. Efficiency targets and independence form carbon are great engines of innovation. If America wants to walk away from that, then fine! Although of course there are plenty of entrepreneurs in the US who see the writing on the wall, let’s just hope that the innovation Neanderthals, so ineptly represented by St George and his mini-me, win the day. All the more for us. And we, unlike these Neanderthals, won’t be inadvertently perpetuating the revenue stream for Al Qeada.

You can't name him. You've just breached his human rights. I'm shocked.

Probably both.

I wonder if Cortese would necessarily want to turn away a potentially valuable revenue stream - assuming the shiny new version of Pompey is one that pays its bills. But - no. In any case, the police would never allow it.

You forgot the 'X'. OPEN AGAIN.

Where have you been? That which we cannot say has been talked to death on here (or nearby).

I thought about that last bit for a minute and then realised you're right.

Invictus. Brilliant - and amazing that Clint Eastwood keeps turning out movies of such high quality. And the best sports movie since - well, Million Dollar Baby. Matt Damon is surprisingly convincing as Pienaar, even down to the SA accent - but Morgan Freeman is nailed on for a Best Actor Oscar.

First sentence. Are you blind?

But you can't put up a wishlist and then go and bump off everyone on it. That's not in the rules. (Although I'd be grateful if you could put RBS out of its sadsack misery. Thank you in advance.)

Borders is dead, as of today. Did you do that?

11. Your position is no longer available.

If that happened, perhaps it wouldn't be so worrying. But no, the species of trees that grow in secondary forests in Borneo are quick-growing deciduous trees. They're not the species you find in rainforests, which are adapted to growing over millennia on little more than mulch (hence their characteristically vein-like root spread above ground). Sometimes the two types of forest can look similar. But there's an easy way to tell them apart. We've watched enough jungle war movies to think that rainforests are full of thick, impenetrable undergrowth. But only secondary forests have this. Walking through primary rainforest is like walking through a gigantic cathedral, with long clear aisles leading in every direction. Thick undergrowth is impossible because the canopy cuts out all light. In Borneo's secondary forests, the light floods in - hence the temperature difference. I've seen far worse in Madagascar, where the primary forests are even more delicate. The mulch is so thin that it is usually washed away within a few weeks. So if you look at any aerial view of Madagascar - particularly in the highlands and the rivers - you'll see huge red scars in the hills and the water runs vivid red. Google 'Betsiboka' and you'll see what I mean - you'll get something like this...

Quite so. And forests do re-grow, even on the thin top soil (assuming it hasn't been washed away). But secondary forest has nothing like the rich eco-system as primary forest. In Borneo about ten years ago, I remember we measured daytime temperatures under the canopy of rain forest and adjoining re-grown forest. The rainforest was 6 degrees C cooler! You could see the effects in temperature difference by just looking at the forest floors. The secondary forest was parched and plagued with tangled undergrowth that drove out any diversity. The rainforest next door, of course, was a mass of mosses, tropical ferns, insect life - and you could see for what seemed like miles through the shaded interior.

Can I make a special plea to keep al Fahim out of this?

I have vague memory of seeing a potato in the shape of Iain Dowie, but it may just have been him.

Guilty secret?

Oh dear. We didn't evolve from chimps. We evolved from one small band of hominids - one of several that migrated from the plains of East Africa. We share a common ancestor with chimps - hence why we still have humans AND chimps. As for the rest, Richard Dawkins in 'The Blind Watchmaker' turns the Creationist argument into matchwood. But suffice to say: the human eye didn't evolve from a primordial soup in one easy step. Evolution is not really like that Guinness ad. So God - or son of - has nothing to do with it. Hence his absence in Cortese's highly evolved statement.

There are two other threads on this, but they are further down the page and therefore of inferior quality.

Why hasn't TDD commented on this?