badgerx16

Dune - aptly named; keep your head buried in the sand. Baaaaaaaaa!

Let us see what David Cameron has to say ; http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/cameron_climate_interview.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-we-need-a-greater-sense-of-urgency-on-climate-change-474841.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4272196/Environmental-revolution-promised-by-David-Cameron.html http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/greenfutures/articles/602739 Veeery left wing agenda Also, Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain supports the theory of MMCC and espouses controls on carbon emissions; http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough/283389 Another commie ?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml (" Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.") http://www.enersolcorp.com/news/2007/Solar_report.htm ("Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.".) http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/ ("Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming") :smt008

It was supposed to be a drop kick, but he didn't let it bounce, so technically it was a punt and therefore he failed.

If you want to present a graph, why not extend it back 30,000 years ? At that point, in the middle of the last Ice Age, Britain was under 1Km of ice, we have sure seen a lot of warming since then. I would have thought that's exactly the kind of statistical information you thrive on. Then again, why not go back to the Cretaceous Period, when there were no ice caps at all, and the sea level was far higher than it is now. ( You would have been happy back then, with all the other dinosaurs ). None of your graphs disprove MMCC, they simply show there is no simple answer.

Why do you never actually read anything that is posted by people who accept MMCC ? NOBODY, I'll repeat that as you seem to be a bit hard of thinking, NOBODY, denies that climate change is a natural geophysical phenomenon, OK - point agreed, don't have a problem with that ! However those who accept the science, and don't immediately and blindly dismiss anything from the Government as another 'stealth tax', have concerns that human activity is exacerbating the problem - not just by adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, but by deforestation and pollution of the seas. You see, in any totally natural event, the balance of nature will be maintained, but we are so obsessed with material wealth and 'my cars bigger than yours' that we are tipping the balance. And whilst it may only be a little bit of the overall total that we contribute directly, the models show that it only needs a very small amount over and above what can naturally be managed, to nudge things beyond the tipping point. In all the historical cycles prior to the mid 1800's, mankind's contribution was effectively zero, and, of course, the rainforests were intact, and the plankton blooms were perfectly happy in their environment. Oh, and the BBC article does nothing other than to say there are two sides to the argument. Hardly an earth shattering conclusion !

Seconded !

We are apparently using the resticted groups approach, applying policies to PC based groups in the AD, and adding 'local administrator' access for privileged user groups to the computer groups as appropriate.

I'm glad you put 'science' in quotes

Micro$haft Windoze is never straight forward. As Shane_SFC says, Privilege Manager is a good way to control admin rights, it is one of the things I know we are currently looking into - I will ask a couple of my techies for their advice about other options.

I think it shows how important a FIT Ricky Lambert is, as the cover isn't good enough to play in place of a half-fit one. And I think the gamble on Ricky is probably what cost us, as we didn't have any spark up front, making their CBs look better than they are, plus a normally questionable keeper decides he needs to impress his new boss.

I'm POSITIVE that's our worst home display this season

Well, bottom 4 for at least another week :confused:

Is that now 3 at the back ?

We are building our whole season on a combination of pace and experience - trouble is it looks like it's the the pace of Jaidi and the experience of Trotman.

"Secured against future television revenues" - smoke and mirrors then ?

That'll do for starters, now a b0ll0king at half time and all over them like a rash for 45 minutes. COME ON!!!!!

So do Harding, and Morgan, and...

We are poo this evening :mad:

Got away with that penalty claim...

1) How many client PCs, and what O/S ? 2) Are any of these articles of use ?..... http://searchwindowsserver.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid68_gci1065698,00.html http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Using-Restricted-Groups.html http://community.scriptingprovip.com/forums/146958/ShowThread.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/heyscriptingguy/archive/2004/10/08/how-can-i-add-a-domain-user-to-a-local-administrators-group.aspx

It is not a good idea EVER to give a user 'Domain Admin' membership, it is a grouping intended only for fixing things when the network / domain really screws itself up. One problem is that no domain management or security policy / profile can ever apply to a D-A member. Also, some systems, such as CITRIX servers, can get really upset when trying to apply their own profiles to a D-A user. Always work on the 'rule of least privilege', give them only sufficient to do what they need to do; there are, I think, about 20,000 combinations of privilege setting in a W2K domain, so you are sure to find something appropriate.

Try to understand, the theory behind the Carnegie work is not new; http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1286972.html ( A paper by one of the authors of your favourite scientific work of the moment, look for the mention of Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev's work in 1951 ). The following extract from the 2005 Alberta paper puts the BIOGENIC theory in the context of being MORE MODERN than the Abiotic ; " The abiogenic origin of petroleum thrived over a period in which scientific knowledge in biology, geology, and chemistry was in the dark ages. Mendeleyev, Kudryavtsev and Porfirev's abiotic evidences was well accepted at the beginning and in the mid-20th century because it offered an explanation for the presence of petroleum deposits in metamorphic rocks of the basement. With the advances of analytical chemistry, around the fifties, geochemical evidence start to suggest, and latter proved that oils are related to biological precursors (Forsman and Hunt, 1958; Eglinton and Calvin, 1967 and Tissot, 1969). In the late seventies Albrecht, Seifert, Moldowan and Maxwell performed numbered studies that definitively proved the relationship between hydrocarbons and their putative biological precursor, burying the abiogenic hypothesis forever. Unfortunately, Thomas Gold convinced the Swedish Government and some neophyte people, in the nineties, that oil could be found everywhere in the planet, but more specific in an ancient meteorite crater, into fractured granite under the Siljan Ring, in Sweden. For this, two deep wells were drilled and millions of dollars were thrown in the deep earth granite (Gravberg-1 in 1986-1990 and Stenberg-1 in 1991-1992). In such adventure, no hydrocarbon was found and again the abiogenic hypothesis was put in its proper place (Kerr, 1990)." Try to get things in the correct chronological order, it always helps with perspective.

But how many others would be understood by their target readership ?

May I suggest you actually go back and read my post again ? The YAHOO answer I quoted was debunking an 'experiment' from 1986, which involved some experimental drilling in Sweden under the guidance of Thomas Gold, who had plagiarised some earlier Russian theories from the 1950s. I did not claim the 1986 experiment was counter to the one you quoted, it is, in fact, based on the same theoretical ideas. And if you would prefer a 'named' retort to the theory of Deep Earth Hydrocarbons, Gold's 'masterpiece' and the basis of the Russian experiments, try this http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml, and part 2 :- http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml And if you can manage it, try this abstract from a 2005 conference in Alberta http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/mello/mello.htm BIOGENESIS, you KNOW it makes sense