Kained

I'd be really concerned if deuterium ran out.

Seriously Lauren and Weather ship, energy security is a fundamental concern for any nation state. By localising energy production you secure access to that energy.

Paul Hudson's BBC weather, blog post on the subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml

I'm sure there's more recent material but as jethro outlines, the Sun's effect has previously been relegated as it has been perceived as a constant allowing greenhouse gases to take a more prominent role. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7327393.stm "Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html "The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%." "Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity." http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/ "According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming."

"Ultraviolet light shone on cold winter conundrum" http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15199065 It would seem the Sun is now, at least partially recognised, as having an effect on climate.

The CBC article GW linked to implies it probably is: http://www.cbc.ca/ca...l#ixzz1AzmdjP9t That refraction of light at the border between cold and warm air is what's allowing people to see farther than normal, Davidson said. "Refraction makes light travel," he said.

Seriously? Even if you were only looking at the human evolutionary period, that statement would still be factually incorrect.

This kind of comment borders on belief rather than informed scientific opinion.

It will be a step up on the Kardashev scale for humanity.

Hayes line is closed at Hayes, the 7:06am train is still there and couldn't get up the slight gradient from Hayes to West Wickham. Roads are gridlock around any gradients as well.

Think on it as a positive step Moomin. Tim Berners-Lee invented the concepts of the World Wide Web to "facilitate sharing and updating information among researchers" this idea is reaching the next level of maturity, the scientific community will be better for it.

Firstly, leading climate scientist? Secondly, it would be apprciated if Rajendra Pachauri actually argued the salient points of the report rather than attempting to dismiss it since it doesn't fit his point of view.

It's now: 768 counted in so far 5240 counted out so far The variation in poll numbers has been interesting. Perhaps they've been spammed by invalid submissions, or perhaps had trouble with the code.

I'd really like to see your evidence for Polar Bear drownings being on the increase? As far as i knew they are very good swimmers and Ian Stirling ("Behavior". Polar Bears. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1988) cites them being seen up to 200 miles from land?

You're willing to ask the question "Why now?" but what about the question "Why then?". Ozti the Iceman had been crossing the alps allegedly as part of a raiding party but had died from wounds in combat and allegedly had an arrowhead removed from him at the scene of death. It must have been cold to preserve the body but not cold enough the outweigh removing the copper arrowhead. Otzi was then, over time, entombed in the ice. So if you can ascribe meaning to finding his body now what meaning can be ascribed to bronze age man engage in combat in the heights of the Alps 5000 years ago?

Actually, purposeful spoiling of a ballot paper does have an effect, perhaps not on the current instance of the vote but if enough votes are spoilt then it should be a way of showing politicians that they are not offering a choice worthy of the vote. Far better than not voting at all and something anyone can do without becoming politically active. I agree entirely with your second sentence.

You just did? The issue is if that data has been used for research, the media has publicised it or it has be used to affect public policy. It is good NSIDC have publicly acknowledged a problem, open honesty about data builds trust.

Charles Darwin disagrees with you... Charles Darwin's prediction:

I suggest you read up on Charles Davenport and the Cold Spring Harbor Lab. James Watson feared such a similarity and set up the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program. There is a vast difference between genetic screening and the sterilisation and euthanasia of those deemed genetically impure. I believe you know the ultimate outcome of the eugenics movement?

Well actually no, scientists shouldn't tell the government what to do, scientists are not afforded any special treatment under universal suffrage. Scientist can of course provide information to the government for the government to make informed decisions but it is for the government representing the people to make those decisions. Don't start with lists, scientist are not infallible, the top of my opposing list would start with eugenics.

You'll need to clear the satellite dish of snow on it, just cleared mine and got a clear signal back.

Hayes, Kent, between Bromley and Biggin Hill has 10 inches. Trains are cancelled, i wouldn't bother Charlton.

Perhaps were not looking at the core of the arguement, when Albert Einstein wrote his paper on mass-energy equivalence, he was not well known, he was not at the top of the field, he didn't have the sort of credentials people are putting so much onus on. What he did have was good solid science. Science is not something to be locked away behind credentials, science is something that should be verifiable and repeatable. Given the right environment and methodology i could split an atom, i could sequence my DNA so i should be able to replicate climate models and test for validity given a set of parameters.

I can't find a link but the Discovery Channel had an episode on a recycling plant in the US that could take mixed waste. Government investment in such technology could have resolved the problem but instead what we got was an inefficient system of separating waste, additional collections, additional staffing and a burden on the public. Recycling then wouldn't have been such an issue. Was it political ineptitude or was it politically useful? The last part of your sentence certainly makes it seem like a useful tool to achieve public compliance.

It's only a bad start because of Devonian's complete support of AGW...