Arsenals 14 minute flight!

[Herman 9,692]

No it isn''t and I have loads of evidence to back the figure up.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Gainer the Gopher"]97% is a blatant lie perpetuated by you sheep too afraid to think for yourselves. Thanks for the fake stats, worst keeper ever guy.[/quote]Ohh, A blatant lie.Fine. I guess that settles the argument then. No need for any follow up on this one guys.Case closed.

[lowlyfendweller 0]

Global warming does occur if CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise and CO2 is absorded by the sea and earth significantly reducing the impact.

Both sides are correct, however scientists do not truly understand this process of C02 absorption, how much the earth can cope with and how fast things would go tits up if a threshold was reached.

More research is called for and there''s no point in worrying about it too much at present. Not a good idea to gamble in the long term either though. All 3 perfectly reasonable responses are happening as we speak, but many are raving like loonies on the fringes

Funny ol thread, Personally I think Arsenal should march by night, with Wenger in a Sudan chair.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

The problem with the argument for global warming is that, regardless of how many science people say otherwise, we just have insufficient data to prove that the phenomenon is actually occurring. Worldwide records for the weather do not begin until 1914, just 100 years ago. Even if the oldest records available are used, the Central England Temperature Series, these cover only a fraction of the planets surface (the midlands to Lancashire) and were only kept for the first time in 1659, 356 years ago. Now I would expect that many of the 97% of science people you are putting your faith in will say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (an opinion which is of course subject to change mind you). This would mean that the Earth''s weather patterns have gone largely unrecorded for pretty much the whole 4.5 billion years it is claimed that this planet has existed. So even if they could definitively prove that global warming is in fact taking place, it would be impossible to determine that man is solely responsible for the situation. This is because we can not prove how world wide weather has previously been affected by naturally occurring incidents, such as volcanoes like Krakatoa erupting. This is due to there being no reliable and wholly trust worthy sources of information that have survived since civilization first started keeping records of any kind, in Mesopotamia roughly 5000 to 7000 years ago. So the global warming theory is mainly guess work and conjecture, as the silly meme I posted previously shows us with the beauty of hindsight.That said however I do feel it is more than a little extreme to go through all of the hassle of getting on a coach, driving to the airport, checking in, boarding the plane for a 15 minute plane ride, disembarking at Norwich International, then getting on another coach and driving to Sprowston Manor or Dunston Hall, when you could just get on a coach once and arrive at your destination in the same time or less. . [;)]

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Thanks for those well-written, readoned and considerate replies, Fen and Iwan.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

Not sure what all the fuss is about, there is no viable, clean way for Arsenal to travel to Norwich, working on the basis that a coach would be diesel powered, the shite that diesel engines pump out is horrific. If the fuss is just that they are flying, then so what, it is up to them what they do.......

[ron obvious 1,495]

Excellent post IBT. I''m a born recycler / conservationist (or tight bugger if you prefer), so I''d always support minimum waste of resources. However, the evidence for man being the major player in global warming - & the extent of its effect - is open to question.

Science can only properly deal with phenomena within a certain range: too few events & it cannot build a model, too much complexity & the model breaks down (although increasingly powerful computers are helping here).

The first thing any model will be required to do is to be tested against past events. This is a problem with climate, since I know of no model that explains the occurrence & timing of events such as previous ice ages. In fact, until comparatively recently the warning was of our heading for another ice age. I''ve been sceptical of climate predictions since a " Little Ice Age" prediction asserted by the New Scientist in the early 1980s turned out to be complete tosh. An appeal to authority is non-science.

They should have taken the bus though.

[Hairy Canary 667]

The cause of ice ages and warmer periods is very well established Ron. The Earths movements are not uniform in that the eccentricity of the orbits ellipse and the oscillation of the tilt towards the sun gradually increases and decreases. These are very long term uniform changes and can easily be measured and predicted.

There is a fantastic free course on Future Learn if you want the detail.

The point is that this current warming, which is measurable and indisputable, does not fit in with the usual heating and cooling that has happened for thousands of years based on the Earths normal patterns

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Methane from the farts of lardy Yanks, especially those ones with the extra stomach tucked into their voluminous highly coloured baggy shorts, has been shown by the UEA to be having a massive impact on climate change.

[morty 0]

Ever noticed how some people will deliberately take a controversial view, or one opposite to the majority on a discussion forum, just to pick an argument?Oh, and Mr Jenkins has nailed it with the above comment.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="morty"]Ever noticed how some people will deliberately take a controversial view, or one opposite to the majority on a discussion forum, just to pick an argument?[/quote]

I''ve never seen that happen and anyone who has is clearly an idiot and/or troll.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Bor"][quote user="morty"]Ever noticed how some people will deliberately take a controversial view, or one opposite to the majority on a discussion forum, just to pick an argument?[/quote]

I''ve never seen that happen and anyone who has is clearly an idiot and/or troll.

[/quote][:D]

[havemyhowsonit 0]

Oh really who gives a f**k?

14 minutes, 14 hours or days travel. It''s still not gonna change the hiding we will get today

[......and Smith must score. 1,331]

Setting aside the arguments re global warming/ carbon footprints, etc, etc for one moment.With a near hurricane blowing today the Arsenal contingent will feel like they''ve been strapped to an Alton Towers white- knuckler for 14 mins by the time they arrive at Norwich Airport.Hopefully they''ll still be feeling spewy come 4.15 [:D]

[Mr Apples 1,315]

One thing the climate change skeptics need to consider is that global warming/cooling are undeniable natural processes and there is plenty of evidence to support this. The main question is whether anthropogenic activities and contributions of greenhouse gases are tipping the natural equilibrium (and its not just carbon dioxide we are taking about here).

The head in the sand approach may work for now, as ultimately our generation(s) will not suffer the potential consequences. Most reasonable people should think that taking the ''precautionary principle'' would be wise to avoid future problems and if the issue fails to have consequences at least we have acted responsibly.

In any case they should have taken the train...provided it was electric...with the power supplied from a renewable source or fully abated power station (preferably gas with carbon capture and storage or nuclear)...and then walked to the ground.

Apples

[Thirsty Lizard 3,154]

Well Arsenal certainly played like they had a nasty case of jet lag. And perhaps that rash of injuries they picked up in today''s game had something to do with them being cooped up on that nasty cramped plane for 14 minutes.

Oh - and Alartz - how did that ''hiding'' we were going to get today turn out?

[ron obvious 1,495]

Hmm. Yes. Thanks HC, I''d already seen some stuff on Milanković orbital forcing periods, but they also said it was not the whole explanation by any means. If you look at the Wiki topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

& look at the 4th paragraph under ''Variations in Earth''s orbit (Milankovitch cycles)'' it needs other, unknown, factors to account for variations over the last million or so years.

Our recorded readings for the past few hundred years (if that) are insignificant of changes taking 10s of millions of years.

The sun''s variability in output is an interesting factor:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Anyway, who cares, we drew with the Ar$e!!