silverfox

Point of information The only thing that is generally accepted is that man-made CO2 emissions are a contributory factor to global warming, although I accept it's easy to lose sight of this given the global warming lobby's messages. There are others factors as well including natural cycles. The man-made emissions side of the equation allows us to do something to minimise it's effects. What we do, and how successful we will be, is however an unknown variable.

This actually applies to a new law about to be introduced in France. It would cover men who shout at their wives and women who hurl abuse at their husbands and also applies to cohabiting couples - although it is not clear if nagging would be viewed as breaking the law. My reason for mentioning it? If the law applied here my wife would have a life sentence by now! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html#ixzz0bpAh1tUl

Trainee hypnotist puts himself in trance using mirror Mr Kichmeier, whose stage name is Hannibal Helmurto, had learned the skill to put himself into a somnabulistic trance to help him swallow multiple swords on stage ... But as he practiced the skill in front of the mirror at 10am he set himself into a deep sleep until 3pm, when he was found by his wife. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6936814/Trainee-hypnotist-puts-himself-in-trance-using-mirror.html

PM me when you're next in town

Get a room lads

Thanks Huguenot, what you say makes perfect sense and yes, I realise Graham Harvey's article was of dubious scientific merit. I thought I'd include it though because I feel (I don't know for a fact) that such woolly thinking exists on both sides of the debate. You see, my problem isn't with incontrovertible science - it's more to do with the save the planet brigade and the way they preach and dictate to the rest of us as if they're on some quasi-religious crusade. Eg, there were 65,000 people who turned up at Copenhagen with all sorts of sub-groups with their own political agenda. 99% of those present were simply hangers-on. They had no useful purpose there, were never going to contribute anything and simply proved to be a burden on resources. However, in the way the facebook generation is gullible enough to turn up to a mass sing-a-long at Liverpool Street Station or Trafalgar Square to become unwitting free extras in a television commercial, the great unwashed masses descended on Copenhagen. It was obvious they were not going to achieve anything. These self-appointed guardians of the planet wasted the world's time. They had no right to try to represent me. They would have contributed more to the health of the planet if they'd spent their time fishing old bikes and supermarket trolleys out of canals or scraping the tons of chewing gum off the pavements of Lordship Lane. That aside, you raise an interesting point Huguenot. If methane cannot be 'recycled' and it remains in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas twenty times more effective than CO2, then maybe the issue shouldn't be so much about our carbon footprint but more about our methane footprint. A few sums on the back of a fag packet show me that collectively humans produce far more methane than ruminant beasts, especially after a night on the beer and a curry. Maybe the new mantra should be 'Ban Curry and save the Planet'. Happy New Year everyone.

Belching cows can help to rescue our planet The prodigious methane output of cattle is bad for the environment. But grazing on grass will soak up carbon. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6974621.ece Funny isn't it how many of the climate scare myths start to fall one by one

The implication of this research is that there will be a time lag until the untouched little darlings in Germany, Sweden and Finland reach adulthood. Only then will be be able to judge whether it is accurate or not. Sweden and Finland could be measured against their high alcohol and suicide rates before and after smacking was abolished. It will be slighly more difficult to assess the effect on Germany given that its dominance of the EU will muddy accurate economic figures.

Maybe 'losers' is a bit harsh. Potentially just less successful

A study has found that young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be more successful than those who have never been hit. "...parents who rule out smacking as a matter of principle may be less likely to help their children develop the self-discipline and social skills needed to succeed in life." http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6974059.ece While this may seem to go against the grain, there can't be many parents who haven't smacked their children at one time or another. Now it appears it may be a good thing.

Paraskavedekatriaphobia Noun paraskavedekatriaphobia Fear of Friday the 13th. Etymology From Friday + thirteen + -phobia Derived words ?paraskavedekatriaphobic and Polydactyl Being born with additional digits (fingers/toes)

Explaining inches, feet and yards, pounds and ounces and degrees fahrenheit to 'yoof'

Inventor spends Christmas with his perfect woman - a ?30,000 custom-made fembot Inventor Le Trung spent Christmas Day with the most important woman in his life - his robot Aiko ... Le, ... even bought gifts for his dream girl, who is so lifelike she speaks fluent English and Japanese, helped cook the turkey and hang up decorations. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1238324/Robot-Romance-Inventor-Le-Trung-takes-fembot-girlfriend-Christmas-dinner.html#ixzz0ajS7aAKE

Just catching up with all this, but may I preface my remarks below by saying Casper, it's good to read a post where someone has actually stopped to think before posting. As a sceptic I'm prepared to accept that the upward trend is global warming. Many clever scientists say this is so and I've no reason to disbelieve them. I'm also prepared to accept our (humanity's) actions/lifestyle are contributing to this global warming. To what extent, what we can do about it, is open to debate. However I remain sceptical for many reasons. Not least - if I ask a meteorologist what the weather will be like next April when I take my holiday in Devon, for example, besides looking at me as if I'm mad, the best 'forecast' I could hope for would be some aggregate of the normal temperatures, seasonal weather you would normally experience in Devon in April. Fair enough, its an unfair question to ask. However, I read articles telling me in 2050 our climate will resemble (tick one of the following) a) similar to the time of the dinosaurs b) the seas will rise 65 metres c) we'll be growing bananas in Scotland. Such climatic prophesy is astounding! 1. It may have been the media, but whoever coined the phrase 'saving the planet' has done this whole issue a disservice. Climate change has got nothing to do with saving the planet - rather it's about humans' future on this planet. The planet does not need our help thanks very much and will cope quite nicely with carbon dioxide/monoxide/methane atmospheres etc for the next billion years or so. As far as the earth is concerned it will deal with what is, as it has done with no help from us for four or five billion years. 2. I am mystified by how many people are prepared to put their complete and utter trust in the scientists on this debate. I suppose in our secular age the scientists are the new Gods. Their 'expert' advice, opinions cannot be questioned. To question the prevailing orthodoxy is heretical. In fact the term 'flat-earther' is now being bandied about as an insult even on this forum. Ironically, those using this insult miss the point. Belief in a flat earth WAS the orthodoxy of the day. The educated classes of the time all believed this was so and to question it meant being burnt at the stake. BUT IT WASN'T CORRECT. The global warming debate is a bit like that. Scientists for all their purported objectivity are as susceptible to being caught up in their own belief systems as a group of nuns in a convent synchronising their menstrual cycles. 3. I am shocked at the wave of eco-authoritarianism that surrounds the whole debate. People who you'd think butter wouldn't melt in their mouth become absolute despots and dictators. Give up meat to save the world! Ration air flights! Cycle to work! etc etc. As EDOldie rightly pointed out, to question any of the half-truths and myths is traitorous.

Good for the carbon footprint though

Salami battle in supermarket leaves Germans in hospital Two Germans needed hospital treatment after they fought a pitched battle in a supermarket with salamis used as clubs and a chunk of Parmesan cheese brandished like a dagger. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/6810528/Salami-battle-in-supermarket-leaves-Germans-in-hospital.html

Agreed. However I do feel sorry for the UEA scientists and I'm quite prepared to accept there was no intention to falsify data. As far as I understand it the problem they had was conflicting data due to different methodologies used to record that data. The 'tricks' were the attempts to factor in adjustments so the data could be used meaningfully. However, one good thing that's come out of it is that our met office is now going to look again at 160 years of data.

SeanMacGabhann said: "so, the quote I used was just mere "questioning" was it?" Yes, when taken in context. Unfortunately your selective editing changed the sense. By deliberately omitting "The 'facts' are not necessarily FACTS and many of ..." you managed to work yourself up into a tizz. It's simple. The post asks whether there are still any climate sceptics out there??? and I am unashamedly one of them. I'm sceptical about some of the half-truths and myths being paraded (and unfortunately accepted by many) as facts and truth. I'm a sceptic - not a denier. And putting daughters on stages to espouse a cause, good ship lollipop-style, does not impress me.

You see, this is what makes me sceptical. Who says 65 metres and how do they estimate this? In what sense is this a fact? If I say - Surely if low-lying areas of the world are submerged by rising sea levels the sea will spread out and so not rise so much? - Now that sounds a bit childish and non-scientific. However there is a serious point there. Where does this figure of 65 metres come from? Scientists can obviously say we estimate there to be xx billion cubic metres of ice in the antarctic but it simply doesn't make sense to say if it all melted instantaneously sea levels would rise 65 metres.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They recently found a new supply of rare earths in > Greenland > > http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind > ustry_sectors/natural_resources/article6860901.ece That's a very good point you raise there Townleygreen and it raises some worrying implications. As already covered on the 10:10 thread, the solution to a good many of the problems we face will be technological and scientific advances, ie cleaner energy with more efficient use of resources. Rare earth metals are part of this solution and the find in Greenland is certainly welcome to prevent Chinese domination of this field. However there is a terrible irony to all this: namely Antarctica. There is a good argument to say that the melting of the ice on that huge continent is welcome in the sense that it will allow us to mine a huge new reserve of minerals and metals - not just the gold, coal and oil that the super-powers are presently squaring-up for in what will be a 21st-century land grab - but the very rare earth metals that are presently seen as so valuable for green technology and military applications.

Not sure what Huguenot was ranting about above but people are right to be sceptical about this whole issue. The 'facts' are not necessarily FACTS and many of the doom mongers represented by those trashing Copenhagen appear to belong to the great unwashed meat is murder brigade, happily trotting out dubious platitudes as to the causes. This is a serious issue. The airline industry accounts for only a fraction of this country's carbon emissions. Charging mobile phones, watching sky tv, and plugging in computers does more damage than all the planes in the sky. Some of the 'solutions' being proposed belong in the realm of Noddy land. Electric cars, wind turbines etc all need rare earth metals that the Chinese have cornered the market in years ago (cue political/military tensions in the near future). In order to extract the rare earth metals we need to rip the planet apart causing severe ecological damage and so on and so on.

As per the article, Dr Anne-Marie The, in her book on the history of euthanasia called Redeemer Under God. Also, Dr Els Borst, the former Health Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who guided the law through the Dutch parliament, who now says it was brought in 'far too early'. They would seem to be good authority on whether the quality of care has declined or not. Also, an important lesson for us to consider if we intend to bring in such a law.

True - it's more of an unintended consequence but suggests that if anything the need to guarantee palliative care and pain relief on demand for terminally ill people becomes more important where assisted suicide is available otherwise we're on the slippery slope to euthanasia.

Sorry Huguenot, what is your point here?

Rap music, goat curry and why crying racism won't help us beat black crime "... in his own clumsy way, Liddle has touched on a very real problem - the disproportionate number of young black men who commit crime. It's no use howling 'racism', this is a real problem confronting our society ... On her blog, Abbott writes: 'Sadly 80 per cent of gun crime in London is "black on black", often involving boys in their teens. As a black woman and the mother of a teenage son, this is frightening and wholly unacceptable.' ... Why is it acceptable for Ms Abbot to raise such issues, but not Mr Liddle? ..." Kwasi Kwarteng http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1234026/KWASI-KWARTENG-Rap-music-goat-curry-crying-racism-wont-help-beat-black-crime.html