Jump to content

Happy Face

Legend
  • Posts

    39427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Happy Face

  1. It's a huge site with lots of links and references. Taking the first 2 as an example... The second one backs up my argument rather than yours (or theirs). It's a report sponsored by The National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It agrees there is increased global warming. It agrees that it's man made. It says black carbon (a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust) rather than being only a fifth as harmful as CO2 emissions, might be just three fifths as harmful. So not as harmful as CO2. CO2 is still the major contributer. Rather than being what the sites claims as a "reason to be cautious about accepting CO2 as the causative agent" it is the just about the opposite. Confirmation CO2 is a more major causitive agent than black carbon, and more difficult to remedy. http://www.innovations-report.com/html/rep...ort-106086.html I wouldn't call the authors of the first paper baddies either, but Benestad and Schmidt have since produced a report in which they: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml
  2. I've still got a 25 inch telly my brother won on Metro radio about 15 years ago. I've never been on radio though. EDIT: What am i talking about. I've been on Nightowls before never won owt though.
  3. Must be pretty tatty these days. Happy Birthday.
  4. Schopenhauer thought that one can have a tolerable life not by complete elimination of desire, since this would lead to boredom, but by becoming a detached observer of one's own will and being constantly aware that most of one's desires will remain unfulfilled. The question you need to ask yourself is are you happy to desire success at Newcastle while knowing most of your desire will remain unfulfilled? Or do you see the route to a tolerable life as the complete elimination of that desire along with the inevitable boredom?
  5. The new series started a couple of weeks back on More4. Tonights episode at 10.40 is the third of the series The Reunion Larry tries to win Cheryl back by writing her a part in the Seinfeld reunion, but things soon go awry when Meg Ryan is cast in the role instead. The original cast of Seinfeld - Jerry Seinfeld, Jason Alexander, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Michael Richards - star in this episode alongside Meg Ryan.
  6. 31,000 scientists including 9,000 with phds have signed the above petition http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_...d_questions.php Why don't you do the most basic checks before flying in with easily refutable claims? It's a page on Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition Because its a bit of entertainment Like talking a load of tosh with the lads at the pub, a bit of fun, a giggle an internet forum I miss Fop. There's a wum who made an effort.
  7. 31,000 scientists including 9,000 with phds have signed the above petition http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_...d_questions.php Why don't you do the most basic checks before flying in with easily refutable claims? It's a page on Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
  8. That's the SPPI where... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_P...olicy_Institute Look at this bloke and you'll find... http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=7603 Instantly discredited by association. I'm sure there are plenty of inaccuracies in Al Gore's film btw. None that mean global warming isn't being exacerbated by man though. I find it ridiculous that any research that is privately funded is instantly discredited. That demonstrates a very poor understanding of scientific achievements. The majority of research is private, tall buildings dont fall over, planes stay in the sky, some drugs save people's lives, cars dont blow themselves up etc. All conclusions of private research. This guy may be a fraud (cant be arsed to check) but blithely dismissing science because it is privately funded is stupid. I'd already said earlier in the thread... So when CT uses a scientist whose research was sponsored by the petroleum institute, I thought it proved my point. Looking at his record further you can see that... and... Of course privately financed research discovers many wonderful things and I'd encourage any R&D any private company feels is of benefit. But a climate change research paper sponsored by the petroleum institute is generally going to be about as balanced as a 1960s lung cancer study commissioned by the tobacco industry.
  9. "Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese."
  10. Science itself never really did - that authority known as religion however... (though it was actually geocentricity that was the real battle ground) Strange to use human conjecture since proved entirely false by science in order to argue science gets it wrong sometimes and that's a reason to favour conjecture. It's rare to see such a self-contradicting argument. Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat. According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus and Democritus believed in a flat earth. The Pythagoreans, who were much influenced by mathematics and Leucippus was the first Greek to develop the theory of atomism — the idea that everything is composed entirely of various imperishable, indivisible elements called atoms. Sort of early scientists wouldnt you say If your going to wriggle on the petition....... Great minds postulating theories in an age of ignorance. There were no tests worth a damn until Magellan hopped in his ship and proved it by circumnavigating the globe. There's endless amounts of data been gathered on global warming.
  11. That's the SPPI where... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_P...olicy_Institute Look at this bloke and you'll find... http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=7603 Instantly discredited by association. I'm sure there are plenty of inaccuracies in Al Gore's film btw. None that mean global warming isn't being exacerbated by man though.
  12. Science itself never really did - that authority known as religion however... (though it was actually geocentricity that was the real battle ground) Strange to use human conjecture since proved entirely false by science in order to argue science gets it wrong sometimes and that's a reason to favour conjecture. It's rare to see such a self-contradicting argument.
  13. Science said that? Which experiments led to such a conclusion?
  14. Are the Times co-opting stories from Womans Own now?
  15. http://www.petitiononline.com/stories.html Dont quiblle, get signing I'm not one to quibble, but the website themselves claiming their petitions had an impact isn't necessarilly evidence of their petitions having an effect. Anyone can start a petition for something that was always likely to happen anyway.
  16. The blokes who wrote freakonomics (which I loved) caused a bit of a stir this week in releasing their new book Superfrekonomics. I've not read it, but from what I gather they point out that no-one gives a fuck about earth as long as they can fuck, fly, drive and eat what they like. They suggest more wacky schemes like giant umbrellas and miles and miles of hose to pump chemicals into the sky rather than concentrating solely on reducing emmissions. Many have said they're talking shit. EDIT: Found the chapter online: http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Books/super...8071&page=1
  17. I guess it's like a girl who works the pole to get through college. You can see the financial sense and you don't mind other women doing it, just not your own daughter.
  18. As long as they brand the stadium with the trefoil and not the three line triangle.
  19. "Football is a results business and in the same way that I enjoyed the successes of the previous two seasons, so I must take ultimate responsibility for the disappointments of 2009" Paul Duffen A chairman taking responsibility?!
  20. It seems ridiculous that a man who initially wanted to reduce the debt to zero would operate such a huge overdraft. The only reason behind it could be that he wanted the new owners to have to deal with it, which suggests to me that he had decided to put us up for sale long before relegation. He could get a £40m overdraft as a premier league club. He wouldn't have been able to do that as a championship club. He expected to reduce the overdraft once the transfer window opened either way and he was unwilling to put any more of his own money into the club. It makes financial interest for him to pay off the remainder that wasn't covered by player sales and reduce interest payments to zero. I think that was his plan whether we stayed up or went down, whether he sold or not.
  21. Brown's sacked the chairman! http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t...ity/8330852.stm
  22. Has anyone ever seen anywhere an occurrence where a petition at petitiononline.com has convinced anyone in a position of power to even partially reconsider for a moment any aspect of the matter being petitioned? If you can provide a link to that case, I'll gladly go and sign. I hate these things almost as much as the "Facebook group against paedophiles".
  23. If the photos aren't good enough to hold up under scrutiny then I guess there's no harm in diverting peoples attention with a shocking title to encourage sales. Does the local artist realise that's what you're doing though?
  24. If my theory from July was correct (and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise), he's just putting back into the club some of the money he took out at the end of the season. The £40m overdraft only appeared at the end of last season. I've always thought it was money he took from Barclays to cover some of the cash he'd put into the club. He then set about selling players and using that cash to reduce the overdraft. He took £24m in player sales in the close season, so there's still £16m+ of the overdarft outstanding. He's now putting back £20m of the £40m he took out of the club in May/June in order to avoid charges on the overdraft.
  25. Cunt owners come and go. Barring unfortunate incidents I'll be alive another 40 or 50 years. I'm 99% certain that I will live to see Ashley out of my club. His heart's not in it like mine is. There's no need to boycott or come up with the money to buy him out. Until he does fuck off I'll complain about the fat fucker and give him a load of shit while I'm there, but no way will I stop going.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.