Guided Missile

51. Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 3-4; Goodridge, J. D. (1999 private comm. 52. Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atm. Envirn. 29, 1957-1961. 53. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1987) J. Geophysical Res. 92, 13345-13372. 54. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1989 Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323-326. 55. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., and Sato, M. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1665-1668; http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/ 56. Schimel, D. S. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 77-91. 57. Houghton, R. A. (2007) Annual Review of Earth and Plan etary Sciences 35, 313-347. 58. Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. (1992) Science of the Total Environ.114, 227-284. 59. Segalstad, T. V. (1999 Global Warming the Continuing Debate, Cambridge UK: European Science and En vironment Forum, ed. R. Bate, 184-218. 60. Berner, R. A. (1997) Science 276, 544-545. 61. Retallack, G. J. (2001) Na ture 411, 287-290. 62. Rothman, D. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA99, 4167-4171. 63. Petit et. al., (1999)Nature 399, 429-436. 64. Siegenthaler, U., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1313-1317. 65. Spahni, R., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1317-1321. 66. Soon, W. (2007) Physical Geography, in press. 67. Dettinger, M. D. and Ghill, M. (1999 Tellus, 50B, 1-24. 68. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C. R., and Thornson, D. J. (1990) Na ture 343, 709-714. 69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27. 70. Yama****a, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Ocean og ra phy 49, 559-569. 71. Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. (1997) Trends On line: A Compendium of Data on Global Change, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html 72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057. 73. Ar cher, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625. 74. Faraday, M. (1860) The Chemical History of a Can dle, Christ mas Lec tures, Royal In sti tu tion, Lon don. 75. Serreze, M. C., Hol land, M. M., and Stroeve, J. (2007) Sci ence 315, 1533-1536. 76. Bentley, C. R. (1997) Sci ence 275, 1077-1078. 77. Nicholls, K. W. (1997) Na ture 388, 460-462. 78. Davis, C. H., Li, Y., McConnell, J. R., Frey, M. M., and Hanna, E. (2005) Sci ence 308, 1898-1901. 79. Monaghan, A. J., et. al. (2006) Sci ence 313, 827-831. 80. Kullman, L. (2007) Nordic Journal of Botany 24, 445-467. 81. Lindzen, R. S. (1994) Ann. Re view Fluid Mech. 26, 353-379. 82. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Work ing Group I Report (2007). 83. Kyoto Pro tocol to the United Na tions Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1997). 84. Sun, D. Z. and Lindzen, R. S. (1993) Ann. Geophysicae 11, 204-215. 85. Spencer, R. W. and Braswell, W. D. (1997) Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78, 1097-1106. 86. Idso, S. B. (1999Cli mate Res. 10, 69-82. 87. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, S. B., Kondratyev, K. Ya., and Posmentier, E. S. (2001) Cli mate Res. 18, 259-275. 88. Lindzen, R. S. (1996) Cli mate Sen si tiv ity of Ra di a tive Per tur ba tions: Phys i cal Mech a nisms and Their Val i da tion, NATO ASI Series 134, ed. H. Le Treut, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 51-66. 89. Renno, N. O., Emanuel, K. A., and Stone, P. H. (1994) J. Geo phys i cal Res. 99, 14429-14441. 90. Soden, B. J. (2000) Journal of Climate 13, 538-549. 91. Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M., and Hou, A. Y. (2001) Bull. Amer. Meteorlogical Soc. 82, 417-432. 92. Spencer, R. W., Braswell, W. D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL029698. 93. Lindzen, R. S. (1995), per sonal communication. 94. Khalil, M. A. K., Butenhoff, C. L., and Ras mus sen, R. A. (2007) En vi ron men tal Sci ence and Tech nol ogy 41, 2131-2137. 95. An nual Energy Review, U.S. En ergy In formation Admin., Report No. DOE/EIA-0384 (2006). 96. Essex, C., Ilie, S., andCorless, R. M. (2007) J. Geo phys i cal Res., in press. 97. Gore, A. (2006)An In con ve nient Truth, Rodale, NY. 98. Pen ner, S S., Schneider, A. M., and Kennedy, E. M. (1984) Acta Astronautica 11, 345-348. 99. Crutzen, P. J. (2006) Cli ma tic Change 77, 211-219. 100. Idso, S. B. (1989)Carbon Di oxide and Global Change: Earth in Tran sition, IBR Press. 101. Lam, S. H. (2007) Log a rith mic Re sponse and Cli mate Sen si tiv ity of At mo spheric CO2, 1-15, www.prince ton.edu/lam/doc u ments/LamAug07bs.pdf. 102. Lindzen, R. S. (2005) Proc. 34th Int. Sem. Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, ed. R. Raigaina,World Sci en tific Pub lish ing, Sin ga pore, 189-210. 103. Kimball, B. A. (1983) Agron. J. 75, 779-788. 104. Cure, J. D. and Acock, B. (1986) Agr. Forest Meteorol. 8, 127-145. 105. Mortensen, L. M. (1987) Sci. Hort. 33, 1-25. 106. Lawlor, D. W. and Mitch ell, R. A. C. (1991)Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 807-818. 107. Drake, B. G. and Leadley, P. W. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 853-860. 108. Gifford, R. M. (1992) Adv. Bioclim. 1, 24-58. 109. Poorter, H. (1993)Vegetatio 104-105, 77-97. 110. Graybill, D. A. and Idso, S. B. (1993) Global Biogeochem. Cyc. 7, 81-95. 111. Waddell, K. L., Oswald, D. D., and Powell D. S. (1987) Forest Sta tistics of the United States, U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture. 112. Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Vissage, J. S., and Pugh, S. A. (2002) Forest Re sources of the United States, U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture. 113. Grace, J., Lloyd, J., McIntyre, J., Miranda, A. C., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S., Nobre, C., Moncrieff, J., Massheder, J., Malhi, Y., Wright, I., and Gash, J. (1995) Sci ence 270, 778-780. 114. Idso, K. E. and Idso, S. (1974) Agr. For est Meteor. 69, 153-203. 115. Kimball, B.A., Pinter Jr., P. J., Hunsaker, D. J., Wall, G. W. G., LaMorte, R. L., Wechsung, G., Wechsung, F., and Kartschall, T. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 429-442. 116. Pinter, J. P., Kimball, B. A., Garcia, R. L., Wall, G. W., Hunsaker, D. J., and LaMorte, R. L. (1996) Car bon Di ox ide and Ter res trial Eco sys tems 215-250, Koch and Moo ney, Acad. Press. 117. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1991) Agr. For est Meteor. 55, 345-349. 118. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1994) J. Exper. Bot any 45, 1669-1692. 119. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A., (1997) Global Change Biol. 3, 89-96. 120. McNaughton, S. J., Oesterhold, M., Frank. D. A., and Wil liams, K. J. (1989)Na ture 341, 142-144. 121. Cyr, H. and Pace, M. L. (1993) Nature 361, 148-150. 122. Scheiner, S. M. and Rey-Benayas, J. M. (1994) Evol. Ecol. 8, 331-347. 123. Gore, A., Pelosi, N., and Reid, H. (June 29, 2007) The Seven Point Live Earth Pledge. Speaker of the House Website, www.speaker.gov. and www.liveearth.org. 124. Beck mann, P. (1985) The Health Hazards of NOT Go ing Nu clear, Go lem, Boul der, Col o rado. 125. American Nuclear Society, Nuclear News (2007) March, 46-48. 126. McNamara, B. (2006) Lea brook Computing, Bournemouth, Eng land. 127.Pro jected Costs of Gen er at ing Elec tric ity: 2005 Up date (2005), Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency,OECD Publication No. 53955 2005, Paris. 128. Penner, S. S. (1999 Energy 23, 71-78. 129. Posma, B. (2007) Liquid Coal, Fort Myers, Fl, www.liquidcoal.com. 130. Ausubel,. J. H. (2007)Int. J. Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology 1, 229-243. 131. Penner, S. S. (2006) Energy 31, 33-43. 132. Simon, J. L. (1996) The Ultimate Resource 2, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey Happy googling Hokie...

Not only am I a f*** sight smarter than the PhD's working for me, I am also a f*** sight smarter than you, Hokie Kokie. You see, this isn't a f***ing peer reviewed paper, publishing research findings, but a review of peer reviewed papers, publishing research findings. As such, you could publish it in Popular Mechanics and it would be just as credible, because it depends on the quality of the research papers it is reviewing. These happen to be the research papers reviewed: 1. Robinson, A. B.,Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999 Journal of American Phy-sicians and Surgeons 3, 171-178. 2. Soon, W.,Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999) Cli mate Res. 13, 149-164. 3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Sci ence 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_au thor/keigwin1996/ 4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Sci ence 308, 675-677. 5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H. F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Bound ary-Layer Me te o rol ogy 92, 3-26. 6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geo phys i cal Res. 106, 31717-31727. 7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Re gional, and National CO2 Emis- sions. In Trends:A Com pendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dio ide Information Analysis Center,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm 8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429. 9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906. 10. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html and NASA GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt. 11. Soon, W.,Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003)Energy & Env. 14, 233-296. 12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp. 13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769. 14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253. 15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085. 16. Newton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) 33, 2006GL027234. 17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) In ternational Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/high lights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_re cov er ing_from_LIA_R.pdf 18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18. 19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication. 20. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli mate/re search/cag3/na.html 21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208. 22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1697-1700. 23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Sci ence 293, 474-479. 24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geo physical Res. 111, 2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/au thor_ar chive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/ 25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Ma rine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94. http://sealevel.col o rado.edu/ 26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, History, and the Modern World, Methuen, New York. 27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equi lib rium Therm. 32, 1-27. 28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A., Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077. 29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112, 2005JD006881. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc. 30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866. 31. Christy, J. R. (1995)Climatic Change 31, 455-474. 32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press. 33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute. 34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700. 35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901. 36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001)Na ture 411, 290-293. 37. Jiang, H.,Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Ge ol ogy33, 73-76. 38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15. 39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C. A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857. 40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995)As tro phys i cal Jour nal 438, 269-287. 41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Na ture 446, 646-649. 42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831. 43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T. (2006)Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333. 44. Hammel, H. B., andLock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764. 45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1999 Nature 393, 765-767. 46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003)Nature 424, 165-168. 47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003)Nature 424, 168-170. 48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007)Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13. 49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207. 50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) 33, 2006GL027142.

I acknowledge that there is an extremely small contribution by the human race to climate change. 100% I believe that the evidence exists right now. 100% I believe that the contribution now and in the foreseeable future is insignificant and will thus not adversely affect our climate. 100% I believe that the response to this insignificant contribution, caused by the environmental lobby, if taken seriously by government will cause the human race economic and social problems. 100% I believe that the world governments will unwind the burden imposed on the electorate, by this unelected faction, starting with Japan, then the UK, then the rest of the world. (China and Russia never really bought into it) 100% I hope Russia will jail the rest of Greenpeace and then start on Friends of the Earth. 100%

Why? I'm a f*** sight smarter than them.

Funny you should say that. I have a few PhD chemists working for me at the moment. I must admit, they're sh !t hot at "stirring bulk chemicals with a stick".

Ask me in another 2-300 years, when there may be enough evidence to prove that the slight increase in the earth's temperature is due to an increase in anthropogenic CO2 or a natural variation in solar radiation. I would put a million pound on the latter, but then, I have only got a degree in chemistry, so what the f*** do I know. To be honest, I'm still laughing about that Youtube clip...

A certified accountant with a degree in chemistry from St. Andrews versus a certified crackpot with a degree in healthy eating advice from the University of Youtube....

That's about as factual as everything else you've quoted. Professor Nick Hewitt? Premier League? You're having a laugh...

I assume "intellectual pygmy" is OK...

The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975 There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.” Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. —PETER GWYNNE with bureau report :lol::lol:

...and you've got this nutter: No wonder you deleted references to him from your post. "Chemistry World?" You really are an intellectual pygmy, who prefers this guys opinion to Edward Teller, a scientist whose arse you're not fit to wipe...

"RB" has, after nearly losing his shirt at the Rose Bowl, already been bailed out of his egotistical folly, by the taxpayers of Eastleigh. With the Rose /Ageas Bowl losing money hand over fist, it beggars belief that Keith House didn't want Southampton Football Club any where near Eastleigh, but preferred the financial model that is county cricket. Cricket ground? This is a cricket ground...

Einstein's dead, so I guess there goes the Theory of Relativity. You really are a muppet.... ....and latest developments??? Give me a break. You obviously didn't read this paper, since which, nothing of note has happened, apart from billions of tax dollars being p! $$ed away on meaningless research. Still, I have a feeling that you have made your mind up on this issue, so you carry on and keep worrying. Luckily the penny has dropped at number 10.

The Co-op bank have funded the hotel build at the Ageas bowl. The developer, Denizen, has gone into administration and work on the £28m development has stopped. Completion on budget relies on another developer taking up the contract and the Co-op bank or someone else financing the rest of the build. My gut feel is that none of the supposedly 8 developers willing to jump into Denizens shoes, will do it for anything like the original build cost. I also think Co-op bank is in no position to extend/increase the funding for this project. I am also suspicious that, with no sane bank on earth willing to finance a hotel to supply the 3 men and his dog who want to stay in a hotel in West End to watch cricket, the additional cost of the completion will fall onto the Eastleigh taxpayers. I would also like to know, as a Co-op member, what Rev. Paul Flowers role was in approving this loan and whether it relied on his prior contacts with Eastleigh Borough Council.

I would like people to consider who is on my side in this debate. Please look at this site and ignore the amateur, bed wetting, alarmists on this thread. Amongst the scientists who signed the petition are Edward Teller, ​Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen For those that don't know who these scientists are, google them. They are even smarter than me...

All of which brings me back to my theory that if you p!$$ in the sea at Weston Shore, it will contribute to a rise in the sea level. I think the majority of scientists would agree with my theory...

Read this d!ckwad...you might learn something.

I said to a mate of mine a while ago that any banker who agrees to fund that large white elephant in West End must be on drugs. According to this article, it appears I was right: Who's going to dig Eastleigh Borough Council out of the sh !t, but more importantly, how much more money will the Eastleigh taxpayer lose. It would be interesting if the Reverends local "links" influenced the banks' decision to spunk £28 million and counting.

Looks like the PM has been following my posts.... ....let's hope he cuts the green levy ASAP!

Some advice, Hokie. As you get older, you will learn that humans are, in general, prone to mass hysteria for no better reason than some loud mouth, or even worse, some group of loud mouths, communicates something that is slightly worrying. It all relates to the fact that by and large, we are all clinging to a decaying planet, a meteor strike away from following the dinosaurs and kept alive by a sun that has a finite life. We get grounded by an erupting volcano in Iceland, the name of which we can't even spell, just as we were about to take the girlfriend off to Majorca for a long weekend. We are worried that next time we step out the front door, we will be over our wellies in water due to a rising sea level. We don't like aerosols because they deplete the ozone layer, we had to replace our fridge and the Met Office, who failed to tell us a tree was falling on our house in 1987, reckons we're killing the planet, but even the scientists can't agree. All we know is that our fuel bills and tax are going up. When you're down the pub, with your drunken mate, have another beer and talk about football, because this thread is seriously affecting your mental health... And believe me, the human race is not destroying the planet. We are no where near important or powerful enough...now go and have a lie down.

The reason that the development of nuclear power bit the dust in the UK was not for economic or democratic political reasons. It was because the Soviet Union helped fund and support the CND in the UK, which did its best to subvert public opinion. The CND were communist puppets working during the cold war in an attempt to affect the nuclear capability of the UK. What I find laughable is that anyone can argue against nuclear power on the basis of a few accidents that killed a few dozen people. Yeah, I know we can carry out cancer death approximations and claim the increased radiation exposure from these accidents might have led to 50 thousand to a million deaths from cancer, but yet again, dubious statistics have been used to suppress technology. My guess is that these nuclear accidents caused about as much cancer globally, as sun beds have. Smoking is estimated to kill 5.4 million people a year and I struggle to see any lobbyists calling for a ban on selling tobacco. One day, the ignorant will allow scientists develop answers to the world's problems and when the technologies that their theories produce, are occasionally proven wrong, trust these scientists to improve them. I'm not holding my breath...

I'd contract the Russians and Chinese to build us new nuclear power plants, as, during the last outbreak of bed wetting, the green lobby and their chums in politics effectively killed an industry the UK pioneered. Who knows what would have happened if the British scientists had been allowed to continue developing the technology. We may even have introduced thorium reactors to replace the uranium based ones we are forced to build as replacements. Might be worth all you beard-strokers reading this.

You just don't understand the Arctic graph. The source of the data is from http://nsidc.org/ , not the Daily Mail and I believe the data rather than your desperate googling to support your case. The Northwest passage has been opened and closed over the last few hundred years more times than Rev. Flowers wallet. As far the Royal Society, their stance on "global warming" shows just how low the media fueled scientists in this former august body have sunk, in continuing to follow the bandwagon that they jumped on. Tell them that bandwagon is now called "climate change", as "global warming" has not happened for the past 15 years. I believe in climate change. It has happened since the earth formed. In the short term, (I mean hundreds of years), the earths atmosphere and climate is by and large self-regulating, plus or minus 0.75oC due to the laws of that great member of the Royal Society, Isaac Newton. Any changes caused by mankind are akin to you p!$$ing off Weston Shore and worrying about the rise in sea level. So, accept the earth's climate is largely beyond our control and far too complex to model accurately. Rather, try to stop the damage caused to our society, by the climate change b0ll0x, spouted by the same bunch that moved us away from nuclear power generation and on to f***ing wind turbines, solar panels in the sunless UK, et al. Frankly, I'm fed up to the teeth of paying for it in my taxes and fuel bills.

Here's another couple for you, this time Arctic and Antarctic: So, in other words, don't fall for the nutters looking for research dollars to support their wacky global warming, now called climate change bullsh !t. It just costs us more money in taxes and energy prices. If you don't believe the graphs above, ask your self why no government, company or organisation is planning on making billions in transport savings on the imminent year round opening of the Northwest passage. The reason is that they know, like windmills, it makes absolutely no economic sense because it isn't going to happen....

Go easy on George, Bexy. He obviously doesn't have access to the information on which you base your expert analysis. Let me help him: