badgerx16

They are not the fount of that particular knowledge stream ffs. My understanding is based on 2 main foundations; the first is the raft of scientifc research and sources concerning this process; the second is that I feel I am qualified to assess this information and form an educated opinion, given I have 4 science A levels and a science degree.

Maybe he was putting it in terms you might understand

They have admitted that beyond about 2 days they are only about 40% accurate, and have stopped trying to 'forecast' in the longer term completely. This winter has a long way to go yet, let's wait and see.

Dune, find some REAL science to support your argument - I am afraid that anonymous Daily Express junior hacks really have zero credence.

Did you forget that hotbed of Marxist conspiracies the Meteorological Office

If it ever came to pass I would, but as it won't I shan't have to.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear : http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm "As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming, “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.” http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_sunspots_affect_global_warming "We suspect that sunspots do not affect global warming and there is no evidence that they do. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_sunspots_affect_global_warming#ixzz18OnUQPX5" http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/ "Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 "There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, e.g. making up as much as 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) of the carbon in the atmosphere" Don't think there is that much C14 locked up in the tundral CH4.

So, let's take the children on both sides out of the argument :- We would have a man with convictions for drug dealing, burglary, driving without any form of licence, and for whom the reason for seeking asylum has been removed. What would you do with him ?

I don't think they are married. He also has convictions for burglary and drug dealing.

As the victim's father put it, "If it is so unsafe to send him back to Iraq, what did so many of our soldiers die for ? He fled Saddam, Saddam is dead. The court has upheld his 'human right' to a Family Life, what about mine ?"

They're not embarrassing, they are perfectly predicted by the theories and the science. Try doing some research.

"Microsoft security" ( a personal and professional prejudice I hold against Micro$haft )

Do you accept that the Earth orbits the Sun ? ( As proven by science ). Do you accept that you require Oxygen to live ? ( As proven by science ) Do you accept that a kidney transplant can help extend a patient's life ? ( As proven by science ) All of these were born of theories, and all were initially dismissed as fanciful.

I always worry about them 'axeing' each other questions.

LOL at the bookie who's already paid up on England retaining the Ashes.

It is also prone to being correct.

I think it has something to do with the fact she was alive when he fled the scene and only died later in hospital. He was only convicted of driving whilst disqualified, and leaving the scene of an accident.

objective

Trousers, you are fully entitled to your view, and I don't mind debating with folks who understand that alternative opinions are acceptable, ( even if it can at times descend into a 'my quote is better than your quote' playground spat ). As was hinted at in my post, there are certain 'deniers' on here, St George being probably the most vociferous, who are vehemently dismissive, tending to the abusive, towards people who have the temerity to differ in their interpretation of the situation.

sausages

Thanks, I should have been a bit clearer. The problems with the deniers is they cannot see what is really happening, their heads are firmly buried in the dunes. ( Pun on our favourite right-wing wind-up merchant is fully intended ).

Your geography is as bad as your politics. I'm not in Manchester,- try again. And most of my family are resident in Sot'on, and I include them in my 'pool' of lefties. In fact, when I got promoted to a 'management' position, one called me a 'traitor to my class'.

It's quite simple, Global Warming is neither consistent across the globe, nor consistent in it's upward path. The models quite clearly predict cold periods, including unseasonal episodes like the UK is currently experiencing. This does nothing to detract from the basic science, nor the overall tendencies to warmer global temperatures.