Pleepsie

In standard English, what is wrong with 'Shetland'. After all the word 'english' covers the spoken and written versions of English.

Why not try NHS Direct? You can to talk to someone or try the self help guide.

The Taliban uses the drug trade as its main source of funding for weapons and explosives.

We have a Beagle. They are lovely dogs - but be prepared for the chewing, stealing, bin raiding 'puppy' stage to last about 3 years. They also take about a year to house train - so be prepared for endless puddles! Being a pack dog, and not bred as a house pet they hate being left alone - so unless there is someone around all day as well as evening don't do it! They dont bark, they howl and it carries a long way. They howl to draw your attention to something, this can be people walking past your gate, the postman, someone daring to call at a neighbours house, a bird landing in the garden..... and they howl if left alone, as if to say " hey! you forgot to take me - I'm still here. Come back " and they will keep it up untill you do come back. They never grow out of this. They need a lot of exercise, a ten mile run is a warm-up for a dog designed to run with the hunt all day, but you can't let them run free because if they get a scent they will just keep on running and no amount of shouting or waving bits of treat will make them return, some owners get satelite tracking collars for their dogs as it is such a problem. They will drive you nuts if you don't exercise them really well every day. The rehoming sites are full of Beagles aged around 18 months - 2 years old, this is when peoples patience gives out, its extremely wearing to never see any improvement. But, by the time they reach 3 years old they seem to settle down and become a pleasure to have around. My advice is think long and hard before getting a Beagle.

Another 'mistake' ... another report by the WWF. I wait with bated breath to see how they will explain this away.

Its the first line that I find most revealing "Chief scientist - we have to be honest about climate change" this would seem to imply that they have been less than honest up till now

Yet another blunder from the IPCC. Do you think they will return the money now that the glaciers are not melting like a lolly left out in the sun?

What about the pensioner who has a house worth over £250,000 (which was inherited from their parents) a nice pension pot (never had to pay for a mortgage - so put it into their pension). Who's child moved to Shetland a few years ago and then secured them a place in a care home at hugely subsidised prices. I fail to see why this person should not contribute to their upkeep.

Not just one mistake....but 5, and its not as if they had to rush the report out to meet a deadline, they had years to compile it - and still managed to get something as basic as the area of the Himalayan glaciers wrong.

Another 'climate disaster' based on a phone call. It is starting to look like climate change is man made after all - man made-up that is!

^^^ Sadly, no - it does not answer my question. The 4th IPCC report was published in 2007. I feel it would better serve everyone if they perhaps updated their 'baseline' once every 17 years or so. Hey, here's an idea... why don't they use the latest figures available and just change it the once. I can't think that the IPCC would find that too hard to do, then they can use the new 'baseline' for all their calculations... or are they just going to keep on using the old outdated stuff forever?

Oh, and 2009 was the 2nd hottest year on record. Hmmm... this seems to question the Grace gravity data. I see you are quoting from John Cook regarding 2009 being the 2nd hottest year on record. I did a quick google to see if anyone else agreed with his comparison between sun and temperature, and came up with this. Why only use the 29 years from 1961 to 1990? Why are they not using the figures up to 2009? That leaves nearly 20 years worth of data being ignored.

^^^ Perhaps this goes some way to explaining it.

The same story is also on Reuters site.

Confuse was maybe not the right word, but as is fairly common, the article is light on details and strong on a headline number. What was predicted? "6 feet". Well, 6 feet based on what assumptions and with what degree of certainty? If you say "a 50% confidence of a 4 to 6 feet rise by 2100, assuming the highest CO2 emission scenario" then you are saying something different than if you say "a 95% confidence of a sea level rise of at least 6 feet, regardless of feasible reductions in CO2 emissions", but both could well be reported as "6 feet". The point of my original post was "here we have a climate scientist, who is widely approved of by goverments, having his data rubbished by the Met office. Could this be the start of more data questioning?" Interesting how it is unsafe to use the figures from 120 years to reach one conclusion - but perfectly acceptable to use 30 years worth of figures to reach another!

^^ This is also from the same newspaper article, hardly the press making it up - or trying to 'confuse' us. Perhaps you could give a link to the sea rise figures you mention in your post?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece "The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory" How many more 'myths' will be 'debunked' in the coming weeks and months.

It is not an offence to shoot across a public right of way in England. You are required to stop shooting until the person using the footpath has passed a safe distance from you.

^^^ A comment from one of your trusted sites.

ArabiaTerra wrote: Well, a good start would be for all the institutions that are punting out climate change information to publish the unadulterated figures that they have based their models and predictions on. This would allow the general public a chance to say 'hmmm... these guys seem to have something' or 'I knew it.. its a load of hogwash' and for fellow scientists to check their predictions. And if they come out with the old chestnut 'we have it on paper, it would take forever to do... we can't afford it...' well, Mr Brown could spend a few bob on employing people to do the data entry, thereby helping the unemployed and saving the planet at the same time!

From the Shetland Dictionary (first published 1979) - Sooth-moother (n) an incomer to Shetland. Not quite sure what you find derogatory about a word that describes someone that has moved to, or is visiting the Shetland Isles.

realclimate has this disclaimer… climateprogress has this… greenfyre this, ( completely unbiased as you can see! ) Skeptical Science offers this. (we know how much trust we can put in peer reviewed papers after the email scandle) And on the denier sites.. Climate Audit Watts Up With That? What do they all have in common? They are the personal opinions of the bloggers and in the case of climateprogress "may contain inaccuracies and errors." Hardly sites to be held up as beacons of truth.

What, like the one Gore got for ' efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change'?

Ballpark figure?!?.....just about sums it up. How many more 'ballpark' figures have been used to try and bolster the 'man made climate change' scaremongering over the past few years?

So a couple of scientists sign a petition because they fear they will lose work....how many have fudged figures for the same reason?