Guided Missile

No problem with what you are trying to do with the club, but please don't peddle total ******, such as this, or the Sholing Sports or indeed Sholing "connection". I wish you luck with sponsorship, but you'll struggle if you continue to make stuff up.

In fact Sholing FC have no connection with Sholing. They play in Old Netley and Vosper Thorneycroft were based in Woolston. Trying to take advantage of Sholing Sports' history, IMHO....

Sholing FC has absolutely no connection with Sholing Sports FC, a team founded in 1894 and folded when their ground was sold for housing in the 90's. As the OP will confirm, Sholing FC are a new incarnation of Vospers (VTFC), a team I used to play against, when I was too old to play at a decent standard. Sholing Sports were a class act with a great ground and social club, killed by property developers..

4 years don't mean a thing, we're still doomed unless we throw money in the direction NGO's tell us, we have to cut CO2 emissions, etc., etc., etc.....

Maybe it does, with the evidence: Broadband speed and hours of sunshine are deal clinchers for me....

Anyone see a pattern in this map?

A good summary:

Pie face's qualifications and experience for leading Scotland into a brave new economic world are a 2:2 in Economics and 7 years working at RBS . Mind you Osborne's 2:1 in Modern History from Oxford don't provide much reassurance, either, but at least he has the backing of Danny Alexander, PPE from Oxford. They'll run rings round pie face if he thinks they'll let him retain sterling, without any input into their economic affairs from the rest of the UK. TBH I hope he wins the referendum. It'll mean the end of Labour in the UK, for the foreseeable future, less of our tax money disappearing north of the border and a Tory majority at Westminster for a long time to come....

To put this in "climate change mitigation" spend in perspective, the total aid budget per year for poorer countries, in the form of official development assistance (ODA) was about $120 billion in 2009. Indefensible to spend anything on global warming, IMO...

Oh, and for the anoraks, the projected cost of mitigating climate change is from this document: Table 2: UNFCCC estimate of additional annual investment need and financial flow needed by 2030 to cover costs of adaptation to climate change (billion dollars per year in present- day values) [TABLE] [TR] [TD]Sector[/TD] [TD]Global cost[/TD] [TD]Developed countries[/TD] [TD]Developing countries[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Agriculture[/TD] [TD]14[/TD] [TD]7[/TD] [TD]7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Water[/TD] [TD]11[/TD] [TD]2[/TD] [TD]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Human health[/TD] [TD]5[/TD] [TD]Not estimated[/TD] [TD]5[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Coastal zones[/TD] [TD]11[/TD] [TD]7[/TD] [TD]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Infrastructure[/TD] [TD]8 – 130[/TD] [TD]6 – 88[/TD] [TD]2 – 41[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Total[/TD] [TD]49 – 171[/TD] [TD]22 – 105[/TD] [TD]27 – 66[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Source: UNFCCC (2007)

So, you'd rather have Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the deaths of 50-100,000 Kurds, (including an attack on the town of Halabja with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more), who threatened to annihilate half of Israel with chemical weapons and who was responsible for a war with Iran, in which hundreds of thousands died, rather than the chance of a slightly warmer planet. You and Frank, dumb and dumber...

"Climate Change Mitigation Will Cost Between £44bn to £63bn annually by 2030" – UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2009. What a bargain, Frank, or are you a defective spambot? Hard to tell, really...

We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.

I drive a big f*** off Range Rover around town, because it's safer for me and my passengers (especially when I've been drinking) and is good for intimidating other drivers. For long runs, I prefer my SL, because it's fast and very stable at speeds over 100 MPH. I like long haul holidays, particularly when the weather's sh !t in the UK and like going back to the US, where people are not total pussies like most of the people on this thread (yes, I'm talking about you, Bexy). I buy sh !t I don't need like most people, but don't really lose any sleep about it, because my house is so f*** ing big, I can hoard everything I own. I really doubt that my actions will really cause anyone any pain, but hey, apart from the odd drink driving, last time I looked, excessive consumption is what this economy needs. In a hundred years, we will all be dead, and I don't give a sh !t about my great grandchildren, anyway. Their lives will be a f*** sight better, than the start I had in life, when they inherit the fortune I made polluting the planet....

Not realizing how f*cked I am, is exactly the reason I have got this far.

Meanwhile.... "...they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

Physics has nothing to do with climate science...? Bucky, you're a moron....

Read more here... The guys a wacko and you obviously haven't a clue.

And for my last post on this thread, I will borrow a quotation from Professor Happer's paper, which, I think, is apt:

Sorry about that, always tough cutting and pasting small fonts from a pdf. Try the google option if you really want to destroy the science they contain. I've read a few of them and it is interesting stuff...

Frank, as usual, your rambling post is so illiterate and the spelling and grammar so poor, that I haven't got a clue as to whether you are insulting me, the Chinese or it is just an ironic post claiming I have a limited intellect, while demonstrating the extremely limited extent of your own...

Wipe the dribble from your lips and read the link again. It actually concerns a paper by Prof. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton, which you can read here and a response to this paper from your hero, Michael McCrackpot which you can read here. The link walks you through what a poor grasp of physics and chemistry many of your "climate experts" have, but their entrenched positions are understandable. Happer's job at Princeton relies on him being a world class theoretical physicist and McCrackpot's job largely relies on there being man made climate change. ...and your post? Try harder and read things more carefully. You let me down, you let this website down, but more importantly, you let yourself down...

...and a far more credible rebuttal to your rebuttal here...