Guided Missile

You were right. It's f*** ing brilliant:

Tens of thousands....

Watch this while I get back to running a business and try not to dribble too much...

Rather than Colonel Blimp, I come from the school of philosophy that asks the question, "If You're so F***ing Smart, Why Aren't You Rich?". Well, I happen to be rich and I'm guessing from your deep concerns that someone's getting rich from your bank account, that you're not. So, excuse me if I don't rush out and buy any of the reading material that feed your envy. They have obviously landed you in a bitter place of lower middle class poverty that is somewhere I don't want to visit...

I'm assuming you don't expect to get rich through the next couple of years...

The thing is, there's was a fag paper of width between what cuts the Labour party would have made and that which the coalition have made after the banking collapse and any shade of government would have fed money into an economy starved of it. If you can haul your sorry, left-wing, blinkered arse out of the hole you and your brethren dug yourself by not working harder at school, you may be able to see that the current news regarding the economy is rather good for everyone. You will also see that the latest figures from HM Revenue and Customs show those earning £160,000-a-year – putting them in the top one per cent – will pay 29.8 per cent of all income tax. It has risen sharply in the last decade. In 2003 the same group accounted for just 20 per cent of the total income tax raised. You will also see that in France, where, you may have realised, there is a Socialist government, the economy is going down the drain and one out of four French university graduates wants to emigrate, rising to 80 per cent or 90 per cent in the case of marketable degrees. Thank God for Jim Ratcliffe, who worked very hard at school, lives locally and killed the Unite union, another bunch of 70's dinosaurs you must really love. The fact is, the left wing has committed suicide in this country. Thank God it wasn't a suicide bomb that might have taken a lot of hard working taxpayers with it...

One day, when the truth is known, you will stand back and realise how unlikely the abduction story of the child was and easy it will be to understand why this scenario has been peddled by so many people from the instant the child went missing. Personally, I don't think the abduction scenario will ever be proven and we will be left with suspicion, innuendo and no guilty party, which will suit a number of people.

So, no reason for the McCanns via their lawyers to suppress the e-fit Mr. Smith constructed 5 years ago, then.

Today's Times comments on the subject: Can anyone explain why the lawyers of Gerry and Kate McCann required that a report, which included an e-fit of a potential suspect in the abduction of their daughter, should remain confidential....?

Ignoring the usual nutters, conspiracy theorists and Met police desperate to appease David Cameron, by trying to solve a hopelessly out of date crime, I prefer to believe the Portuguese police conclusion, i.e. There was/is absolutely no evidence of an abduction, Madeleine probably died in the apartment and the parents were involved. Their conclusion is obviously not supported by enough evidence to support a conviction, or indeed the committing of a particularly serious crime. Why would the Portuguese spend the millions required to try and achieve a conviction, with the McCann's fighting such an attempt, every step of the way from extradition, to a probable very expensive acquittal, of a crime of concealing a body? I think it is significant that no-one in the Portuguese media has been prepared to air the recent e-fit in that country. They have also reached the conclusion, I have. Sometimes, crimes are not solved to level required for a prosecution. It is why Savile got away with it for years. As I said, I think the Portuguese are spot-on. The Met should spend money on serious crimes they have a chance of solving, not grandstanding in the media, while getting a tan at our expense.

I made a mistake calling you a clueless windbag. I cannot read you posts now, without thinking of a relentless ***********... Don't blame me, it's the Kraken's fault...

If Wes continues to **** me off, I am still able to resort to: The man's an absolute (rotter, scoundrel, stinker, louse, cad, swine, bounder, blighter, cur, bad lot, blackguard, scrote)* ! *delete as appropriate All similarly underused terms....

It was "clueless windbag", TBF...

Thanks for yet again exposing what a clueless windbag you are and in particular doing it in writing. I think what you are suggesting is that you were right about your managerial hero Adkins (ex-goalkeeper forTranmere Rovers,Wigan Athletic and Bangor City) being sacked and being replaced by a "relative nobody" Mauricio Pochettino (ex-Espanyol, Paris Saint-Germain and Bordeaux player, who represented Argentina for four years playing in the 1999 Copa Américaand the 2002 World Cup) and I was wrong. Since you gave Adkins your internet blow-job, he has taken Reading down into the Championship and they sit barely in the playoff positions on goal difference. Meanwhile we are in a European place. "I mourn the brutal ending of that dream...."

Time for another trip down memory lane, Wes: "I mourn the brutal ending of that dream...." I think this calls for another boycott, Wes...

...and....

Ahem...

This thread demonstrates the m​ost destructive traits commonly found within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human well-being around the world. DDT, GM crops, fracking, fossil fuels.... "Silent Spring" kicked of half a century of junk science for the lazy, ill-informed, well-meaning liberal activists, a tiny minority intent on imposing their misguided views on the rest of the world.

In 1894 the Times of London predicted that by 1950 every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. In New York it was estimated that manure would reach a depth of three stories by 1930.

As Oscar Wilde said, I would continue this battle of wits, but I hate to fight an unarmed man. "Bathymetry"...."correction equations"....hilarious. Now, you must let me get back to "non-reactive mixing together of powders, produced by others...."

Read this paper and illuminate this discussion with your scientific opinion on it, although I'm guessing from your posts that your role in marine conservation is far removed from scientific one. Still give us your thoughts. A simple research chemist like me is just not qualified to understand it. It's not wikipedia but a paper published in July 2013, and a summary is: GOHC estimates were reduced when the corrections recommended in the TG method and when using the CH method were applied. There is a significant reduction in GOHC from the 1970s to the mid-1980s, during which period larger corrections to Sippican T4/T6 probe types were applied. We suggest that application of our time-dependent bias estimates on the global database be undertaken with caution, because a key result is that the pure thermal bias is substantial and changes in time and is very likely based on recorder type. It is unlikely that the changeover in acquisition systems in the research-agency-sourced pairs database analyzed here parallels that in the global archives. Thus, a more nuanced approach may be warranted in determining which corrections to apply to historical XBT profiles. In other words the latest data suggests the the errors caused by the thermographs are even higher than those previously thought, but the authors just don't want to bin 50 years of crap data... I would, though, as my research career wasn't built on bad science like your colleagues.

I can't possibly join a debate which you are attempting to reduce to a level that would embarrass a 10 year old. What is amusing is that you are attempting that, after posting a graph which you obviously don't understand, in support of your belief. Let me explain the problem I have with a graph that you think proves global warming. It is all about the accuracy of the measurements of ocean temperature, in which a public body in the US drops shedloads of expendable bathythermograph into various points in the Gulf of Mexico. They've been doing this since the late sixties and used millions of them. They then take the temperature readings using the data and tack them on to the readings taken in the 50's, presumably using bi-metallic thermometers on a chain. The advantage of a chain is you know the depth you are measuring. With an expendable bathythermograph you have to time its descent to get the depth reading, based on an equation. For a considerable time, these equations were relatively well-established, however in 2008 a meeting of experts exposed a systematic bias in the fall-rate equations. A major implication of this is that the bias in these equations lead to a warm bias in the heat content estimations. You should read more about the scientific basis for the graphs you present. It's not joined up writing or anything...

I think you're confusing heat content (or enthalpy when I was at school) with temperature. The actual temperature measurements from which some of the data above was derived is shown below. The volume calculations for the oceans are not measured, but assumed and give very large heat content values in joules, even when derived from the tiny variations in measured ocean temperatures measured at depth, with, I hope, extremely accurate thermometers. In summary, more of the Michael Fish school of climate change forecasting, total bollx... I wonder how long it will take for this climate change scare to be revealed to all for the crock of sh 1t it is. Is reminds me of the 2K computer disaster that never happened.

What about Jocks, Taffs and Paddies?

Over 10% of the crop is converted into biofuel, which is set to increase...