Huguenot

Treat me gently Dom, I'm clearly not up to scratch today ;-) So do you think that the US evidence suggests that carrying concealed guns in the UK would reduce street robbery?

Sounds like one for Ben Goldacre

Perhaps you're more likely to nick something if you've got athletic shoes on?

43%. Aquascutum almost tripped me. That's still a long way chav though, explains a lot.

That's the kind of outrageous misrepresentation that raises the 'dishonorable' moniker. That's not a Scientific Community Statement, that's from the Cato institute that also believes in the abolition of the welfare system and privatisation of healthcare amongst other policies. Cherry picking your respondents is just no no. The University of Illinois used a database of real scientists in January this year, generated from the world-wide directory of geoscience faculties - over 2000 faculties across the world, and 10,527 individuals. The response rate for the 9 question survey was over 30% (an astronomical response rate in research terms). That's 3,146 82% answered yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%). Note climatologists were included and that the rest are earth scientists (the ones qualified to know), note that the survey had no agenda and was from an independent source. Given that there are an estimated 22,000 climatologists world wide, a 98% agreement rate is still going to give you 400 names to add to any piece of literature you like. This doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. There's a contradiction between political consensus and scientific consensus. The latter assumes an overwhelming evidential case, but must consider data, not mobs. So let's do that... In a study of 1,000 peer-reviewed (i.e not opinion) abstracts on the subject of climate change between 1994 and 2004 (Oreskes), not one was found with results to disagree with the scientific consensus. Not one. Although the research was contested at a later date by Peiser, he only managed to find 34 in disagreement - giving us a consensus of 97%. I should add that ExxonMobil currently offer a $10,000 bonus to any pier reviewed paper that challenges climate change. Even with that bonus in place, they still couldn't find any!!! This means MM, that whether you choose people, or scientific evidence there is an overwhelming consensus that climate change is happening, and that it's generated by human activity.

What Sherwick said, Domitianus. Maybe I'm just confused, but if you make a point about concealed weapons reducing crime on a thread about local muggings, then I'm assuming that there's a relevance between this point and the thread? Ergo that concealed weapons would reduce the likelihood of this crime happening?

Chuckle. I don't think we're quite thinking this through. I think that some people are convinced that legalisation means the homeowners will have the guns and the burglars won't.

For those who prefer a more reasonable view, try David King And for those still struggling with some of the science: New Scientist In a useful, unbiased way, it responds to the concerns of climate change deniers. I hope if you're unsure you'll read through it rather than putting your fingers in your ears and going "aaaaaahnotlisteningaaaaaahnotlistening". For those concerned with percentages, 97.4% of climatologists believe in human-induced climate change and very bad consequences.

It has rather the air of an orchestrated attack, methinks he is hoist by his own petard. Or in English, overcome by his own farts. I can't comment on the quality as I haven't read it, but my expectations would be quite low so I probably wouldn't find much to surprise me!

I don't know AfN, if someone kept shouting "f*cking scum* in my face whilst agressively lunging at me, I would consider it "violently abusing", "acting agressively towards" and "verbally assaulting" If anyone suggested that she was merely remonstrating with the policeman, they wouldn't be telling the truth. I often wonder if those that accuse others of propaganda are actually the worst culprits.

Perhaps MM, but perhaps what it actually does is reduce the obfuscation and deliberate confusion woven by climate change deniers and come to a reasonable conclusion: To do nothing and get it wrong is risking a considerably higher penalty than to do something and get it wrong. You couldn't class this a polemic because he doesn't refute the climate change denier's case. In fact he is at pains to point out that he doesn't know what the answer to the climate change conundrum is, because he's not a scientist. Regarding the science, it may be that you have something common with these chaps: Some of the people were simply suspicious of the media and seemed to think that the most sensible option was to take a contrary view to everything that appeared in the press. After all, the same press caused distress and spread misinformation about the MMR vaccine. Other people were suspicious of the government, believing that ministers always have an ulterior motive, such as finding a pretext to raise taxes. In short, these people believed that it was smart to take the opposite view being pushed by the press, the government and the establishment in general. I suggested that the truly smart approach would be to examine the science and base their conclusions on the best available evidence, at which point I was astonished to learn that none of the people had seriously looked at the evidence for and against climate change. I read an interesting aphorism regarding climate change denial the other day, bearing in mind that the entire scientific community (read 99%+) accepts these three premises: *That climate change is happening *That it is due in the majority to human activity *That the consequences will be disastrous It suggested that to be in the 'no' camp you can only be two of the following: *informed *honourable *deny climate change The point is you can only be two of those items. If you're in denial, you can't be both of the former.

Lol, daft! For Endemol read... If it's a low budget ratings winner (think 'Deal or No Deal') then most will take it. . The point is that Endemol made 'Deal or No Deal'. They don't make quality drama, documentary or news. Are you proposing that Endemol is the future of British Television? Let's have a look at their contribution to humanity: Reality Shows * Big Brother * The Big Donor Show * Star Academy * Extreme Makeover: Home Edition * The Games (British TV) * The Farm (TV series) * Only Fools on Horses * There's Something About Miriam * Gay, Straight or Taken? * Kid Nation * Queen Bees (TV series) * Estate of Panic Game shows * 1 vs. 100 * BrainTeaser * Break The Bank * Deal or No Deal * Eliminator * Fear Factor * For the Rest of Your Life * Golden Balls * Hotrods * I Love Money * In The Grid * Judas Game * Midnight Money Madness * Participation TV * Set for Life * Show Me the Money * Take It or Leave It * Take the Cake * Wipeout * Wheel of Fortune Now, if you were proposing that Endemol isn't value for money, I'd shake you by the hand. Thank God there are more intelligent people contributing to our media landscape. I rest my case.

This is a great contribution to the climate change debate, as it doesn't try to address the science issue. It actually makes the case that the science is irrelevant...

No Domitianus, the comparison is vital to the study. We may for example discover that in gun states crime is ten times more than the UK, and that in concealed gun states, it's only 9.5 times. It may be that the concealment has result of a 5% reduction in crimes against the person, but if the gun itsef still raises crime by 900%, then it's a false saving.

Have you got the studies? Last time I checked the US wiped the floor with the UK in crimes against the person?

Chuckle :))

... if they're unlucky. More'n likely the parents will blame the victims for looking rich, the police for accusing little Johnny wrongly, the witnesses for telling lies, and then make up a story that he couldn't have done it because he was home all night.

I can't see that any of those would have saved her son. :'(

It seems to me lots was done to try and save her son. What else could have been done in that environment, in that historical context, with training measures that had been put in place at that time? Everyone learned and are still learning lessons, but they hadn't done that before that event - it took the event to teach them.

Well that account didn't make me livid, just sad. I can empathise with her her sorrow, if she's angry then I can't empathise with that. I can see how he died, because of crush injuries sustained at a football match. I can't see who the poor lady wants to attack.

I think the act of deposing Mugabe would destabilise Africa. Mugabe gets huge kudos across the continent because of his 'stand against colonialism', which we know is nonsense, but to uneducated Africans it seems heroic. To depose him would be to make a martyr of him, and give us a vast new continent jammed with racially motivated hatred of 'the west'. In all honesty he's not acting alone, he's the clinically insane front-man for a vast engine of medieval tyrants.

The one thing I've never heard is the suggestion that anyone was a murderer. Anyone. I can see why it's impossible to discuss the situation sanely with phrases like that be bandied around.

Type the address http://192.168.0.1 into your browser and you're away. Or try 192.168.1.1 (mine)

Money?

I'm guessing it's Happy Birthday. Originally entitled Good Morning, and translated into eight billion zillion languages all with the same tune. It does sound very strange in Chinese, they sing it like it's a funeral march.