Huguenot

"You don't hear of the Hindus or Jews running around screaming death to the infidels" I'm not sure that even my widely travelled idiot meter has heard that. Any immigrant, especially one who is getting benefits, who thinks and acts in such a way as to do harm to this country should be told to go, its fairly simple if you don't like it here, leave and leave now" Simple indeed. What words and phrases would you like in the statute book? Emigrant as I am, I'd still like to see brainless idiots cleansed. Not being as clever as Vince or SteveT I'm struggling to define it. I'm thinking that anyone that makes me compulsively say "fuckwad" [pronounced wod] would be a good start, but it seems a particular prejudice. I was struck by the recent campaign to engage stupid white men in the political system, otherwise they vote BNP. All the major parties are snorting that particular bumrut. What a tragedy. I note that homosexuality is now a capital crime in Uganda. You have like minds! Mind you, they is blick, so a valid opinion is apparently an oxymoron. I'd just have a "white is right" rally on an east end barge and invite them to take lunch on a Thames sandbank. They don't no nuffink, so they wouldn't even recognise the parody as they sucked their last. Who the feck gave these guys a voice... OH! democracy. I vote to take it away.

aw silverfox, gimme a kiss ;-)

Crazy in Singers, still irascible. Company still stumbling along but on the up. Marginally ;-) No dogs in pubs over here. Just babysat a dogger for two weeks, a little bit lonely since it went home at 11am. You still a compatriot for AllForNun?

Jimbo, you have a dog?

Bus company ads are run by CBS Outdoor (an old outfit of mine). In Jan occupancy is typically around 10%. Mid 90s we ran charity campaigns on the other 90%, by the early noughties we ran campaigns aimed at ad agencies with photofits of senior guys in advertisng and game cards. The idea was that it would make agencies aware of how often they see bus campaigns. CBS joined with the OAA (Outdoor Advertising Association) in the mid noughties and persuaded them that the medium itself was a way of promoting the medium. Most ad agencies still reject outdoor posters on the grounds that their content is subliminal. This particular campaign is to prove that outdoor campaigns are not passed over, but they incite public debate and engagement. They have no conviction in any challenge, the objective is merely to prove engagement. They have 90% void, it costs nothing. It's brilliant. Really, unless you're a sucker, you need to make the debate disappear ;-)

Take tank.

Ladymuck, for you my hugs are still thiiiiiiiiiiis big :-$ You can't keep an areshole down.

Good points all EDOldie, I'm not an apologist for Chinese political doctrine. I'm observing that any debate about Akmal needs context, that's all. There are misapprehensions about China, mainly the idea that you've suggested... "The repression of the people endured during this current economic 'revolution' makes the Cultural Revolution look like a children?s tea party." That's weak. The concepts the Chinese state espouses are not even out of place on this forum. It takes only a short amount of time in China, mine was a mere 18 months, to recognise how close the Chinese system is to our own. For 'bribery' read 'consultancy'. For 'party' read 'Oxbridge' For 'democracy' read 'party politics' It's a weird old junket ;-)

"Metabolic typing was introduced by William Donald Kelley, a dentist, in the 1960s. Kelley advocated basing dietary choices on the activity of one's sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. In 1970, Kelley was convicted of practicing medicine without a license, as he had diagnosed a patient with lung cancer based on a fingerstick blood test and prescribed nutritional therapy." At least he wasn't an engineer. If that's not dangerous enough, try this quote from the American Cancer Society "There is no convincing clinical evidence that supports the claims made for metabolic therapy or any of its components. Some aspects of metabolic therapy may in fact be harmful." Harmful? Sounds like 'Dangerous'.

California Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Investigations Branch: DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A split hair sample taken from near the scalp of a single healthy volunteer was submitted for analysis to 6 commercial US laboratories, which analyze 90% of samples submitted for mineral analysis in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of test results for each analyte, laboratory reference ranges, laboratory characteristics, and interpretation of health implications. RESULTS: Laboratory differences in highest and lowest reported mineral concentrations for the split sample exceeded 10-fold for 12 minerals, and statistically significant (P<.05) extreme values were reported for 14 of the 31 minerals that were analyzed by 3 or more laboratories. Variations also were found in laboratory sample preparation methods and calibration standards. Laboratory designations of normal reference ranges varied greatly, resulting in conflicting classifications (high, normal, or low) of nearly all analyzed minerals. Laboratories also provided conflicting dietary and nutritional supplement recommendations based on their results. CONCLUSIONS: Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable. We recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed. So, inconsistent by an order of magnitude, unregulated and problems of certification. And they ask you to put things in your body that will change your physical health!!! Needless to say, it is those with health concerns that approach these practitioners, so anything that impacts on such a borderline state is intrinsically dangerous.

It's worth bearing in mind that there is widespread resentment in China that Western Society receives huge benefits at the expense of the Chinese. They believe (rightly or wrongly) amongst other things: * We prevent them obtaining fuel (by invading the middle east and shutting the market) * Violate their nationhood (by defending Taiwan, to which their tory party decamped and stole the national jewels) * Threaten their integrity (putting forces in Korea and Aircraft Carriers in the South China Sea) * Hide their terrorists (Uighur separatists masterminding riots in Urumqi) * Threaten their social system (sending evangelical Christian political movements to set up underground networks) * Diminsh their language and culture (generating an expectation that English is the international language, and setting up distribution networks for English language music and films) * Restrict economic and living standards improvement (by requesting them to cut their emmissions when we take 5 times more per head) That list excludes historical wrongs they've suffered. Their history and heritage has enormous influence on their thinking, making historical wrongs seem like yesterday (just like the Balkans) Given the history the UK has in delivering in delivering opium to China to enslave the population, you could understand how sensitive the Akmal Shaikh issue is. If the criminal carrying 4kg of the stuff had then been given a bye on the usual penalties suffered by the Chinese population (because he's a Westerner) it's entirely predictable that it would have resulted in massive social unrest. It's worth bearing in mind these points before seeking trivialise the court case as a political sham.

It's entirely predictable that you'll refuse to discuss your own treatments. I actually don't think you're specifically interested in cholesterol or statins either are you Justin, there's another agenda to this entire thread. It's entirely predictable that you'll use an attack on science to attract a focus group of individuals predisposed against science as a thinly veiled commercial seeding bed. From this evangelical base you can sell your book and sell your treatments. It's textbook stuff. I'm not interested in pharma, I'm interested in your denial of clmate science on another thread, and your denial of medical science on this one. Then I realise your call for focus groups has all the honesty of an alpha course. An engineering graduate such as yourself is clearly clever enough to see the link, and you choose to exploit it. Boo hiss, as they say in pantomimes.

And I know I'm a bit full-on, because I perceive Justin to be cynically playing with people's health for commercial profit. Maybe I'm too cynical, but even so Justin could recognise the comedy in putting pharma under such scrutiny whilst plugging solutions which support no such honesty. I think that's really naughty ;-)

I have picked up on the debate regarding cholesterol and big pharma, and have not read sufficiently into the subject to have formed an opinion. That was not my point. To have a commercial practitioner of non-evidence based hocus pocus peddling snake oil and building up a core customer base off the back of criticising real science is completely disingenuous. He intends to get rich by exchanging real medical treatments for his own juju. He claims valid criticism, but is not declaring his interest. This is not a proposal for a 'study group',it's a transparent attempt to estalish a new revenue base in his new residential district. Cynical. To accuse me of failing to communicate the facts? Debate? That's hilarious. Justin, where are the "2 to 6 year" controlled tests on metabolic typing, hair mineral analysis, neurotransmitter balancing, and detoxification protocols? Apparently these are not long enough, so Justin where are your decade long tests on balanced neurotransmitters? Where are the proven statistics in peer reviewed publications discussing similar statistical differentials to the ones you use to justify your attacks on real medicine? You seem quite comfortable using scientific research studies to demonstrate the lack of absolutes in real medical science. What you replace it with is faith based medicine and quasi-religious study groups. It's like a blinking madrassa. Your 'treatements' in common with homeopathy reject any testing, because like religion, if you put faith to the test you ensure that it won't deliver. You want debate? Let's see your own silly ideas under the same microscope as you're putting statins? Big pharma may well be sick, but at least they're honest criminals.

Hi Justin, what kind of engineer are you? I picked up this from your site: "As a practitioner [your] specialities include: exercise prescription, metabolic typing, hair mineral analysis, neurotransmitter balancing, and detoxification protocols. As a science writer, Justin specialises in cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, general fitness and nutrition. Before his career in the health and fitness industry, Justin obtained a degree in engineering. This rigorous academic background has provided him with the ability to scientifically evaluate published research and the conclusions that are drawn from it." So it appears that as an enginner with no medical training or qualifications, you're advising members of this forum to ignore the advice of their doctors and take yours? You and Gillian McKeith eh? I notice that the endorsements on your website are also practitioners of such esoteric practices as 'metabolic typing'. What are your views on lemon juice and AIDS? I can see why being a climate denialist appeals - there's plenty in that field (who can't be bothered to do the science) using unqualified hypotheses to endanger the lives of other people.

Quids: 'Mentally ill' UK citizen Tracey Housel executed in US, denied access to UK consul - protest against capital punishment "Mentally ill' UK citizen Akmal Shaikh executed in China - protest against liars and cheats (who are inscrutable) trying to destroy the planet making petty decisions based on trivial snubs at conferences Yes mate, that's racism.

Silverfox - you've done it again!!! Graham Harvey provides no evidence of any kind to justify this specious argument. Why do you claim to be 'confused' when you listen to PR agents spout unsubstantiated bullshit, and then ignore research and evidence from the scientific community? The real answer is this: the grass - cow - CO2 / methane / excrement balance is a 'closed' system. All the carbon in grass comes out in one of the latter formats. Once in the grass it's locked in with no greenhouse effect. Once through the cow it either comes out as CO2 or methane gases. The CO2 and excrement could be taken up once again by a plant, but the methane will not be: it remains in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas twenty times more effective than CO2. Hence cows are a net greenhouse contributor and a more aggressive one than simply a CO2 contributor. What this PR agent wrote is bullshit. It's not confusing, it's rubbish. Don't listen to idiots.

Justin you're simply deliberately confusing the issue, as denialists are wont. The fact that people such as yourself have proposed that CO2 is not contributing to climate change and that the earth is about to cool does NOT mean it hasn't been addressed. 'Sceptics' have comprehesively failed to find any evidence for these theories, and all available evidence points exactly the opposite diretion. Hence 'sceptics' are described as 'denialists' because their only position is to deny all the available evidence. Antartica is describing exactly the path that climate change scientists have predicted with uneven warming. You'd have to be a categorical arse to deny that the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf collapse took place, or that it wasn't down to climate change. The 'hundreds'of scientists out there who disagree withn the IPCC report are notable by the fact that they are not specialists in climate (and often not in geosciences at all), and that they still represent a tiny minority (less than 2%) of the scientific community. Put it this way, there's 40,000 geosicentists backing the IPCC report, and 200 retired outdoor adventure and philosophy postgraduates denying it. And a few disenfranchised nutters like Davids Icke and Bellamy I do not talk down to you because I think you are stupid, but because you have some vengeful psychological block that makes you deny every piece of available evidence because it doesn't suit your purpose. To do so when so much is at stake makes you at best criminally neligent, and at worst a misanthropist. Neither deserve any respect.

EDOldie I'm certainly not saying that scientists are right, nor do I stifle debate when there is one. You have offered no 'debate' on either climate change or the Chinese that has borne up under scrutiny. I do observe that the science position is based on empricial evidence, and that the denialist set has generated no evidence for their contrary position. It is the denialists who stick their fingers in their ears saying 'I'm not listening' when the evidence is provided, and then irritatingly claim to be confused when challenged. As for kindergarten logic - you claim that the Chinese have executed a man to get revenge for being undermined in climate change negotiations. You provide absolutely NO evidence to support this, and then claim that denying the link proves that it's right? I should point out that a natural extension of your fatuous logic would 'prove' man-made climate change simply because you deny it. 'Hoist by your own logic bomb petulance' doesn't even half sniff at the whimsy of your reasoning.

From The Goldilocks Enigma - those existence options in full... The absurd universe Our universe just happens to be the way it is. The unique universe There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see. The multiverse Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist. Creationism A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence. The life principle There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind. The self-explaining universe A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP). The fake universe We live inside a virtual reality simulation. The fact that Curly is struggling with the idea of an 'absurd universe' (just coincidence) doesn't mean the only other option is God and creationism.

I don't know what you're confused about EDOldie, all the science is out there. There's only greedy people and the petrochemical industry out there in the denialist corner. If you allow yourself to be confused it's because you find their arguments attractive, and you'll have to question your own motivation for that. I support and fund Amnesty's position because they don't discriminate against people based on their race or nationality in their fight for human rights. In particular they don't persist petty slurs claiming that the execution of criminals is linked to an otherwise reasonable position on climate change negotiations. If you want to talk about human rights in China, feel free to on another thread - but this is a thread about climate change and denialism, and the attempt to conflate human rights in China and climate change is deliberate obfuscation.

This rthread's about climate change, not the Chinese. I take it you're joking Timster - any state that authorises either the death penalty or warfare is by your definition murderous including our own. Check out the expenses claims before you start tossing accusations of corruption about. It becomes racist stereotyping when hypocrites start singling them out. EDOldie's suggestion that the Chinese government's refutation implies guilt is plain silly. It's far more likely an example of their naivety when countering slugs who maliciously attack them online by promoting unfounded rumours. The clear implication beeing made was that the half-witted drugs smuggler was killed in revenge as their reaction to an unfair proposition at the climate change conference that benefitted the US to the disdvantage of China. I'm aware that EDOldie is a climate change denialist, and this accusation is yet another sordid attempt to distract and diminsh arguments aimed at preserving the future of our society.

No, that's ridiculous - conspiracy theorists gone crazy. It's a convenient (and racist) was of sustaining the stereotype of the Chinese as both corrupt and murderous. The reality is that they don't have a particularly liberal outlook on subjects that attack social cohesion (such as drugs), and that has allowed them to sustain and develop a nation of 1.3 billion people and 40 different ethnic minorities. Don't expect them to make indulgences for societies that go to war for oil ;-)

Too much Spooks. They're all just human beans etc.

'tis the nature of Quantitative Easing that it's a simplification. Seeding the economy, laying the foundation for growth that otherwise could not have happened. The only other method to make cash is to bet on failure, a strategy that is both unpleasantly self-fulfilling and has the natural conclusion of systemic bankruptcy. You can't bet on failure forever as there's no-one left to pay out.