badgerx16

It is known the 'Oxford comma', and is perfectly correct in that instance, ( and in this one ).

....Licken, the sky is falling in.

................ Already added to the list......

Chicken Karma anybody

Having no overdraft charges or mortgage payments certainly changes the way the current account balances up.

I wonder if, like the Igor's on Discworld, he has his uncle's eyes, ( and his brother's spleen, and his fathers left hand - but they can have them back if they need them ).

Well the Lord Chief Justice is called Justice Judge. Having been born Igor Judge, his future career path seems to have been pre-ordained !

See St G, it is possible to have a reasoned debate and accept that the other side has a valid point, without resorting to the playground antics of an 8 year old

And maybe the vested interest of 'big business', particularly in the States, and especially of the hydrocarbon based multinationals, are on a mission to under-emphasise and play down the potential issues to serve their own selfish agendas ? A lot of hot air and smokescreens; as has been mentioned before, very similar to the activities of the tobacco companies and their rearguard action against medical evidence, ( a lot of which was poo-poo'd and derided in exactly the same way ).

Tell you what, you can spend an extra £400, as compared to me, on TDD's salary and his submersible, ( I don't agree with Trident so you can cover my share of that ); whilst in exchange, I will pay £800 for HE funding, taking care of your little bit as well as mine. There , does that make you feel better ? H.E. won't cost you a penny.

I think anybody on here who is / has been the parent of a student will verify that it costs a damn sight more than £400 to have them attend Uni - and remember that they all come out with many thousand of £s of debt hanging round their necks when they leave. And don't for one second buy the line that they can afford this because they will all get better paid jobs - The Government says it wants 50% of 18 year-olds to attend HE; there is no way 50% of their future job opportunities will be graded to take account of, or have a requirement for, a graduate filling the vacancy.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You picked up on half a sentence and came over all sensationalist; "Government funding will increase to around £10 billion a year by 2005-06 to support university students, teaching and research - a rise of over 6 per cent a year in real terms. This is equivalent to around £400 a year paid by every income tax payer in England". So this doesn't just cover the workshy, layabout, students then I bet you a significant part of this funding has nothing to do with the students directly, and remember that our educational institutions fleece the overseas students as well, which helps to subsidise things. Government funding of Higher Education is essential to the future economic and social wellbeing of the country.

You can probably buy it for $5 in a slot machine in Las Vegas !

Source ( other than the Daily Mail or the Torygraph ); or is it just some more unsubstantiated right-wing think tank paranoid propaganda ?

You fibbing little tinker Do you fill in your lottery slip after the numbers have been drawn ?

A win, a clean sheet, dominating first half, solid defence. Bring on the 2nd leg !

Try this : http://www.sciscoop.com/climate-change-evidence.html The article basically says that whilst water vapour is technically far more effective than CO2 at absorbing heat, the actual 'greenhouse effect' is felt at high altitudes, where the relative concentration of H2O compared to CO2 and methane drops dramatically; meaning that whilst there may be less CO2 in the total atmosphere, it is has a far greater effect on AGW because of where the bulk of it is found.

See post #921

It does seem to be a stupid system for electing an administration; Elect a President, presumably on the basis of his manifesto, then follow that up by creating a legislature that is ideologically opposed to everything the President has promised to do, and will block it at every turn.

Answers provided

I saw it on the front page of yesterday's Express,http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152422/The-new-climate-change-scandal, ( no mention there of it being lifted from the Murdoch rag ), hence my retort.

And the Tory answer is likely to be council tax cuts for band F&G properties and tax breaks for married couples ? Maybe the Tories are dangling these carrots hoping sufficient of the middle class swing voters will turni(u)p and vote for them. Isn't such electioneering a tad jaded, and possibly just a bit corny ? They may have bean out of power for over a decade, but underneath there is still the same blue monster, bent on dismantling public services. Follow the golden rule; all politicians are bent, and only in it for themselves. It makes things a lot simpler to understand. There is a Tory leaflet going round which says 'It's time to put the trust back in politics'. I sent it back in their reply paid envelope with 'That's why I will not be voting for you' written on it.

So public sector workers should just give up on the benefits they have paid contributions into over their working lives ? Should I just write off that percentage of my salary that has been deducted at source throughout my career ? And just who is looking after the elderly ? The public sector - social services and the NHS provide the majority of the care.

Please don't give him delusions of grandeur

His qualifications and career are not exactly secret : http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm http://www.rkpachauri.org/bio.php And as for the glaciers, the science tends to support the fact that they ARE receding,- the point about the date possibly being misquoted is being used as a smokescreen; http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070327113346.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/04/byers-himalaya-changing-landscapes ( Yes I know, it's that tree-hugger's comic the Grauniad ) And please note, the quote from Prof Dowdeswell is only debunking the accuracy of the 2035 date, ( which it seems is a typographical error transposing 2350 ) - his research work is investigating the recession of the glaciers and Antarctic ice, and he fully subscribes to the fact they are melting and liable to affect sea levels, it's the rate at which it is happening that is open to debate. ( There are plenty enough points questioning Peter Taylor's capability in this field already ).