Roo

Not at all....what someone understands something to be is not necessarily what it is. Similarly, what you think you experience has nothing to do with methodological research and evidence. And Noggin, my reason for posting the original Einstein quote was as a reaction to your backing of a theory because it was 'common sense'..... Chris, can you please give examples of where people, papers, research, etc has not been treated fairly? This argument is being used so often that I really think chapter and verse is called for as I have yet to see even one example of this.

Assassination according to absence of qualification and research background, yes. But character assassination? where?

Examples? Common sense does not mean anything: it is a collection of reactions held by an individual derived from their personal experience and understanding and bears no relation to evidence or learning. How on earth can that be used to dismiss the whole mass of resarch and information detailing AGW? Yes. I couldn't find a reference to it being turned down anywhere.

Exactly! In the journal I am involved with, albeit a different subject, if something has been refused in one and accepted by another it has to be stated. As you say, there is not a huge commotion about rejected material. Why not? Hmmmmm.

I think we need this posting again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm There is no evidence of skeptical science being turned down or not being funded. Not one bit. Nada, Nicks, Niente. [And noggin, it doesn't matter whether you disagree or not. You need evidence. I could disagree that the sky was blue and that the grass was green, but it still wouldn't mean diddly squat.]

Or until hell freezes over which, under current conditions, could be even longer than previously expected! :winky: :o

'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.' Albert Einstein.

Yep...that was when I realised that weather can sometimes be terrifying! We were on a tiny island (about 5 miles by 3), all the boats and planes were sent off two days before the storm hit and we were stuck at the full mercy of whatever was coming. The power and water was also turned off two days before. We had some plywood and load of nails and a short wave radio. Oh, and a useful map in the front of the local phone book to plot the course of the storm! I remember at one stage it looked as if we would get a direct hit, but it jinked off north. We only got 70-80mph, but it still did tons of damage. I can only imagine what 115 would have felt like. I have never felt so vulnerable and had so much respect for my local friends who took it all in their stride.

Hehe...I remember that well. I was caught in that one on Nevis (very minor side swipe, but my goodness it was scary: mainly down to the huge preparations which made us realise how bad it could have been).

Overcoming my temptation to just say 'all of it', my starter for ten would definitely be: 'We used to call it communism. Now we call it environmentalism.' Where's McCarthy when you need him, eh?

I think Dev has a point, to be fair: the New Scientist piece is hardly bunkum. If the temperature rises suggested by the majority of current research point to this as a possibility, then it's hardly gibberish to point out exactly what this would mean? Gibberish is unsubstantiated nonsense like Mr Casey and the SSRC (whatever happened to them, eh?). Fair enough to have a real gibberish thread, but if it's just going to be yet another 'I don't like AGW so it must be wrong' session, do we really need that? Right, now I'm off to try to track down Mr Casey..... Edit: Oh, joy of joys...he does still exist!!!! http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html http://issuepedia.org/Space_and_Science_Research_Center

I never quite understand this argument. The fact remains that the most money, influence, power and political will lies on the side of the anti-AGW argument, in the form of the oil lobby. They pour more money than anyone else into advertising, research, political lobbying, etc, etc. The only conspiracy, if there indeed is one, is coming from that side. They are the real people in charge. AGW is still very much a minority movement, with governments talking the talk, but refusing to back that with money and concrete change. This is the real danger: not enough is being done rather than too much.

I think you should let the insurance company know that she is selling it on. And, whilst she was inside, you could claim her assets and move into her empty home. No worries about re-carpeting the kids bedrooms then, eh?

Also people would have lived and worked in almost the same area, so many of the problems of today, of getting to places, would not have been an issue. Even street traffic would not have gone far by today's standards.

Well we've had a bit of a break through. The reason Mr Roo was getting a new camera was that he had dropped the first one (from 3 feet onto carpet, would you believe) and we had the lens error of death and a cracked lens rim. I phoned the insurance people, fully expecting to be fobbed off or have to wait 6 weeks whilst they decided that yes it was broken and we would have to have it repaired. But, on the same day, they have offered to replace it, like for like (how?????), with a SX1, so we just have to pay the excess and it's ours. The moral of the story: It is true. LV = smiles :lol: I am so impressed with them as it's not the first time we've had to claim (we suffered a leaky roof following a big storm) and they've always been really, really friendly and helpful. Can't recommend them highly enough.

Thanks for that OON. I know the G10 was also on the list, if he was going to spend the SX1 price. I think he liked the SX10 because, for the lower price, it seems to be a pretty good all rounder and one of the best of the under 300 quid cameras. Also, I know he likes the flip out screen of the A650 which, although not a deal breaker, is pretty useful in bright light, etc.

Hiya, T'other half is looking to get a new camera to replace his Canon A650. He's looking for a nearly DSLR (he particularly wants the video capability of the compacts) and the Canon SX1 or SX10 seem to fulfil all criteria for a good bridge. Has anyone got any ideas? We've always gone with Canon as they've done us well in the past, but if anyone has any other ideas, would be good to know (e.g. The Panasonic LX28 seems to be a goody as the Leica lenses are attractive). Thanks for your help

Erm.... And two posts above you said:

Various quotes copied from this thread and the other dedicated to this article: 'For me this is the stance the MetO should have took from the start' 'First tentative signs of the exit strategy' 'it makes a refreshing change for an authority such as the METO to accept, admit and begin to address this issue [of natural influences]' 'If, from the very beginning, the METO had been as moderate as this latest offering' 'It certainly reads to me like a moderating of their previous stance' 'How about the AGW types starting to take steps in accepting that their game is up?' 'I think the met office has a new train now the global warming express has been derailed and a public statement to back it all up' The Met Office have always distanced themselves from silly headlines and they have always acknowledged the natural element of climate change, as has the IPCC: can someone, please, show me where they have done otherwise in the past?

This whole ridiculous thing started because the Met Office, who have always examined all aspects of the climate change debate and yet who are firmly on the side of AGW, wrote a piece which (yet again) examined all aspects of the climate change debate and came out firmly on the side of AGW. This of course has been taken to mean that, clearly, the whole AGW argument is about to collapse and that the Met Office have changed their position in advance of a giant climbdown! I give up, I really do.... Sometimes the kiddies' videos make more sense!

I know....disgraceful isn't it?

Dear Sirs, I have never seen such blatantly alarmist tendencies. You will be hearing from my solicitor. Yours, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. P.S. And now I am off to see 'The Tiger who came to Tea' which I believe to be one of the most outrageous pieces of fabricated theory known. 'The tiger drank all the water in the taps'? I ask you....the Met Office surely should have spoken out against such blatant lying years ago instead of allowing it to fester, unchecked, for 40 years. Brainwashing our children with this kind of extremism is just not on....blah....blah

Sorry VP but it is exactly the right question...so many people have accused the Met Office of being extreme in the past, suggesting that this piece represents a change in view: I would like them to show me proof that this is the case. I would suggest that the Met Office have been leading by example in the past and did not see themselves as climate police. Perhaps they finally feel that the extremist nonsense is now too big a danger to ignore?

Yes they have and no it isn't. Some info here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/...s/security.html

Because it's what they've always said and they wanted to reinforce that? Please can you show me where the Met Office have consistently done otherwise? This is a genuine question. I can find no evidence of the Met Office being anything other than moderate, ever.