Frowning Street

In response to:Global Warming...

Sat, 10 May 2008 11:44:33 +0200

Branding proponents of Global Warming as fascists is disingenuous and self-defeating. There are a plethora of scientific papers that question the validity of some the science of GW. It is it's falsifiability that makes GW acceptable to the bulk of the worlds' climate scientist, because though evidence is produced that contradicts accepted climate change theory, it can be shown to be lacking, or where it is true, it can be incorporated into the 'greenhouse' models. For example, a recent paper (within the last two weeks) on climate models incorporating ocean currents (something they didn't do before) suggests that the worst effects of CC in the northern hemisphere could be softened by weakened ocean currents until 2030, when they would tally closely with those projections provided by the IPCC.

Your repeated resorting to Gore's polemnic (yes, I'll freely admit it is a polemnic - it relies far too heavily on trying to elicit emotional responses) on GW as something which discredits the science is flawed and shows your lack of research on the subject. That film is at least two years old and climate science has moved on in leaps and bounds in that time.

One cannot rely on mainstream media to provide objective evidence for climate change or it's causes. Scientific journals and papers are invaluable in helping one to get to grips with the science and creating understanding of the dynamics of our climate. I recommend Google Scholar for good papers on GW.

In response to:Global Warming...

Sat, 10 May 2008 10:03:05 +0200

Ah...but I could say the very same thing about Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth; it's junk science. The tide is turning against the GW fascists; get used to it! GW sceptics have been silenced for too long but are now beginning to speak their minds.

In response to:Global Warming...

Sat, 10 May 2008 06:37:45 +0200

The report you cite, states that there is warming at Mars' south pole, which is hardly surprising as it is Summer there (and it lasts two years). This is just junk science from GW debunkers.

In response to:Bugging MPs ...

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:22:01 +0100

r u look this blog
www.princetravels.blog.co.uk

In response to:Let's ban Office Jargon...

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:57:07 +0200

nice post
online casinos

In response to:Let's ban Office Jargon...

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:56:56 +0200

nice post
online casinos

In response to:All hands to the dollar...

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:51:51 +0200

use your dollar for the right thing נערות ליווי

In response to:All hands to the dollar...

Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:35:43 +0100

No the dollar is dying right before my eyes..

In response to:Who works for whom?

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:23:04 +0100

This sort of incompetance in the workplace is not limited to yours.

I also work with morons who take the simplest request as a joke, when i'm being deadly serious..

Reason behind this is that these people exist in an alternate but parallel universe, which runs adjacent to ours but never interacts with it.

Try punching one of them sqaure in the face and i bet nothing happens.

Dont hold me responsible for any tribunals if something does though.

Take it easy
Brendan :)

In response to:Who works for whom?

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:33:40 +0100

Is your cleaner the housekeeper off of Father Ted by chance? She wasn't very good at listening either. Oh whats her name???

In response to:Great Britain is on Brown Alert

Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:30:39 +0100

I think you should consult Dr Fuller-Carp.

In response to:Russian News told 2 different ways.

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:26:17 +0100

Its all getting very "Cold War, KGBish" again isn't it.

In response to:Let's ban Office Jargon...

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:08:10 +0100

goanny no dae that.

regards
Brendan :)

In response to:Arming the Long Arm of The Law

Sat, 23 Dec 2006 03:35:44 +0100

As chris rock says...

"Make every bullet cost $5000, then if somebody does get shot, you know that fucker deserved to die"

B

In response to:Quick, we must replace Trident.

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:14:02 +0100

Perfect analogy with windoze. The green solution is to switch to Linux, and to solve world problems with speech, rather than mass-butchery. With Linux, of course, you are still better to update your software as updates are released, but it's much greener, healthier, and freer than the micro$oft equivalent - as would a peaceful world be with no (nuclear) weaponary.

Regards,

Miblo.

In response to:Quick, we must replace Trident.

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:09:00 +0100

We could replace Trident with a large number of hospitals, tramways in cities, an integrated rail transport system, free houses for the poor, and quite a few other vote catching ideas. Or we could do what the Yanks say.

In response to:The Most Wanted Men in Britain

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:53:48 +0100

Have you ever noticed that many of the police e-fit wanted pictures look exactly like the policeman that is showing them?

In response to:title-1331778

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:57:51 +0100

Westminster??

In response to:Statue of con-Liberty

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:48:56 +0100

"Give me your hungry, your tired, your poor - and I'll piss all over them - that's what the Statue of Bigotry says".

Lou Reed.

In response to:title-1286951

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:22:35 +0100

The thing about Asbos is quite sad isn't it? I was reading the Beeb's article earlier and wondering, where do we go from here?

In response to:Apache Gunship Nonsense

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:42:46 +0200

It works for the Police heliocopeters as well - I got sick of them buzzing round my house late at night last summer, so I prepared a hot little fire in my barbecue (it has a very tall chimney and you can almost see a diamond-pattern 'shock wave' in the flames as they come out of the top). The next time they buzzed over I lit the fire, which should have toasted their I/R cameras, and shone one of those MegaBright (TM) torches at them. They soon decided to go looking elsewhere!

In response to:Statue of con-Liberty

Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:52:19 +0100

I can't visualise a statue like the one you describe, not with the adjective 'Liberty' in it - not even after imbibing a couple of good quality single malt whiskies. Oops, should I have disclosed that?

In response to:Terrorists Holiday

Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:51:52 +0100

Your observations speak volumes about policing rubbish, political rubbish, and self-responsibility rubbish. And clarity of purpose is not served by semi-opaque bags of rubbish.

Hope 06 is a good one for you.

In response to:Blair or Blair. None shall pass (the buck)

Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:42:14 +0100

Pardon me, but I find your analysis far too simplistic. While the man at the top (say the general, should not abnegate his responsibilities)there is far, far more to this awaful situation than we shall ever be told, and far more than even 'the general' would have known about. That is inexcusable but there are too many cooks in this kitchen and the outcome is what we have seen.

In response to:Old Bailey, By Crikey!

Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:38:03 +0100

The Old Bailey, as you say still deals with high profile cases that are destined for the Crown Courts. It also deals with many, many lesser ones these days and quite a number of the high profile characters are tried at Crown Courts around England and Wales, they are not now just the preserve of the Old Bailey.

Security was introduced per se after the 1970's IRA bombing; I worked with a survivor of that incident, a guy who was delivering mail. It looks like present-day security needs a special review from what you say.

It is an interesting place to visit though these days I am not in a position to do so very easily.

In response to:The Most Wanted Men in Britain

Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:20:23 +0100

Interesting point! Doubt the cops have figured that out, yet!

In response to:Police Paradox

Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:23:05 +0100

I am not sure sure that QE2 has the powers you suggest, that kind of monarchical power was curtailed - she is trailed as a 'figurehead' a signatory - and has to be "guided" by her ministers and privy councillors.

QE2 ( read that to be monarchs in the UK) is described as being above the law; I would dearly love to have an honest definition of that one. The main benefits appear to me to be tax breaks and the inability to use the law against the institution. (another definition is called for) It is Machiavellian.

In response to:Apache Gunship Nonsense

Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:35:18 +0100

Goody - Argos is opening up 20 miles from here soon, so we might be able to do something about the increased low flying we are forced to 'tolerate'.

TTFN

In response to:Arming the Long Arm of The Law

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:00:41 +0100

You have it in one. The problem is 'TOO MANY GUNS'

The solutions is simple : 'LESS GUNS'

In response to:Arming the Long Arm of The Law

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:20:45 +0100

personally I dont think the police in the UK should be armed at all, just a select "trained" few. However I do think that the "bobby" should be trained in how to deal with firearm suspects (ie in a real life scenario) and also have kevlar bulletproof vests now.