Mr Ed

Common sense is not that common anymore.

This is how I leave them at 5-6m

Or even better, grow the onions in your garden. We had a fantastic crop last year. Good example though Dean. Remember when onions would come in a paper bag? Now everything seems to have 3 layers of plastic wrapping around it...

Your right. I loved it

in what direction? It was meant in referance to the rampant consumerism / endless growth / throwaway society we live in. To not buy flashy consumer gadgets is best. to not use fossil fuels at all in our lives. To not use anything that is not long term sustainable. Of course, I know that this is totally impractical. A certain amount of consumerism is needed. But I think that if people made things last, if items were repaired when broken, more durable materials used, less nasty's like PolyVinylChlorides, etc etc, our world would be a better place. And recycling is a big part of that. I tend to look toward the scandinavian / German model, if they can get it right, there's no reason why we should'nt.

To be fair, his signature says what it needs to.

Japan times article - Quote - 'recycling is rubbish' http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080722jk.html Not consuming is definately the best policy. But recycling what we do use is the next best thing...

I actually agree with a lot of what the proffessor says, particularly with regard to the use of fear as a political tool. Fear of terrorism, fear of climate change, fear of nuclear war, fear of foriegners... Its all used to control populations. However, things like his stance on recycling worry me. European nations like Germany, france, holland, denmark etc have prooved beyond doubt that recycling is totally viable, right down to thermal depolymerisation of waste into light crude oil. The proffesor is supposed to be an 'expert' on recycling, and yet his answer is 'consume more, and just incinerate waste'. When someone is as ignorant as that on a subject they are supposed to be an expert on, it makes me worry about their other statements.

So Professor Kunihiko Takeda is an expert on Uranium enrichment, but knows better than most of the worlds climatologists? Hmmm......

Someone say Demolition?

Tree will recover (with time), but I would be mighty angry if that was my tree. Wonder how the neighbour would feel if you walked round and stuck a boot through his 42 inch plasma screen telly? Amounts to the same thing.

The Passions [ame] [/ame]

The Real Tuesday Weld- [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xch0dJa2FW0[/ame]

New order Rocks [ame] [/ame]

I.m going to try one of those Jonny's. RBtree has a great video of a ported one over at the Treehouse

You sad b*****d dean:001_tongue: My hedges are lucky to get the mcconnel hedge cutter run over them once a year. I bloody hate privet aswell. Grub that one up dean, and plant some nice hornbeam or similar....

My 130 would lock up without much work. Must be the servo Dean. Sooner you get rid of that nasty anachronism of a vehicle and get a sensible work truck the better....

:laugh:

Thats me!

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol. This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired. Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science. The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing. Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict. Of course, just because most scientists think something is true does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong – but later quietly withdrew the claim.

I'd advise anybody who wanted simple information on Climate change to read the link below, Its the special article published by the New Scientist, and draws on all the current information http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

New scientist 2008- SANTA is skating on very thin ice. In 2007 the sea ice at the North Pole was at its thinnest since records began. Christian Haas of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, and his team estimated the thickness of late summer ice at the North Pole in 2001, 2004 and 2007. They found that the ice was on average 1.3 metres thick at the end of the summer in 2007. By contrast, its depth was 2.3 metres in 2001 and 2.6 metres in 2004. "In 2007 the ice was 1.3 metres thick on average, compared with 2.6 metres in 2004"The team went to the North Pole aboard the German icebreaker RFV Polarstern in August and September of 2001, 2004 and 2007. While there, they used helicopter-borne instruments to determine the thickness of large swathes of ice by measuring its conductivity (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034457). Previously, glaciologists had measured ice thickness in spots by placing instruments directly on the ice. Records from 1991 show that the summer ice that year was 3.1 metres thick. While the ice at the North Pole used to be thick "old" ice, much of it now is thinner first-year ice, which has had only a single winter to grow. Earlier studies had already shown that the extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level in 2007, 23 per cent below the previous minimum set in 2005. Taken together, the studies suggest that the Arctic could soon be ice-free during summer. From issue 2667 of New Scientist magazine, 02 August 2008, page 7

From new scientist - The Earth may be much more sensitive to global warming than previously thought, according to the first results from a massive distributed-computing project. The project tested thousands of climate models and found that some produced a world that warmed by a huge 11.5°C when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reached the levels expected to be seen later this century. This extreme result is surprising because it lies far outside the 1.4°C to 4.5°C range predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the same CO2-level increase - a doubling of CO2 concentration from pre-industrial times. But it is possible the IPCC range was wrong because its estimate is based on just a handful of different computer models. "We have anecdotal evidence that people tend to tune their models to be similar to other people's," says David Stainforth, from the University of Oxford, UK. "Nobody wants to have a model that's terribly different, particularly when there are only 8 or 10 in the world," he explains. Stainforth and his colleagues set up http://www.climateprediction.net to see what happened when models were not tuned in this way. They start with a climate model that divides the Earth's surface into boxes hundreds of kilometres square and then change some of the 29 or so parameters that govern aspects of the atmosphere and weather. These tweaked models are farmed out to volunteers who run them on their home computers via a screensaver. Models that accurately simulate today's climate are then dosed with carbon dioxide, to give double pre-industrial levels, and projected forward 45 years to see how the climate responds. "Quite scary" Since the project launched in 2003 (New Scientist, 12 September 2003) more than 95,000 people from over 150 countries have donated spare computing time. The results have now come back from 60,000 simulations and the team have analysed around 2000 of these, focussing on six parameters. While most of the models showed the global mean temperature rising by between 3°C and 4°C, some experienced much stronger heating. "When you see large areas of the northern hemisphere at 11°C above pre-industrial levels, you think this is quite scary," says Stainforth. Geological data shows the Earth's climate has been much warmer in the past. Temperatures were around 6°C higher during the Cretaceous period, for example, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. But Bob Spicer, an expert in the palaeoclimate at the Open University in Milton Keynes, UK, says there is no evidence that temperatures have ever been as high as in some of the climateprediction.net simulations. Missing factors Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the models. There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9°C to 11.5°C. "The uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen. Clouds, which climate scientists have already recognised as the Achilles' heel of climate prediction (New Scientist, 24 July 2004), were the main cause of the variability in the high temperature models. The two most sensitive parameters governed the humidity at which clouds form and convection in the tropics. More observations of these critical processes could now help to narrow the uncertainty in the climate models' prediction. But the climateprediction.net team stress that they are not saying we will see double-digit temperature rises if CO2 emissions go unchecked. "We're saying we can't rule it out," says Stainforth. The next batch of climateprediction.net models will be making predictions of the timescales over which these changes might be seen, says Stainforth. "We need a lot more help, and we encourage people to continue getting involved." Journal reference: Nature (vol 433, p 403)

Pink fluffy clouds, wicked tune.

Nope. I did'nt imply anything of the sort.