Milestones by Sayed Qutb Only 160 pages, very quick read indeed After the attempted assasination of Egyptian President Nasser in 1954 by Muslim Brotherhood operatives, a number of Muslim Brotherhood leaders, including Sayyid Qutb, were imprisoned. While in prison Qutb wrote a 30-volume series on his interpretation of the Quran, "In The Shade of the Quran", as well as this book, "Milestones". Milestones is at its core a treatis on Political Islam, After Qutb was hanged for subversion in 1966, his brother Muhammed Qutb went to Saudi Arabia, where he taught Islamic Studies. Among his students was Ayman Zawahiri, teacher of Osama Bin Laden.

Eddie no-one is more disappointed than me with our performances in the cups and our recent form in the league. However we have to be realistic without Hughes the cub would not be achieving Uefa football, or runs in cups it is nothing short of brilliant what he has done with this club given the pitiful backing he has received. Give me an example of any manager that has had to seel to buy for over seasons. When fans were getting carried away at the start of the season, I held back because I expected us to plateau off given the quality of our squad and the decay in certain areas mainly central midfield and centre back. At any other club in the premiership this would be addressed to the best of their abilities but because of the limbo position the trust has put the club in the likes of savage, Roberts, henchoz, Mokenoo cannot be replaced Yes we have some very good players- most bourght buy are excellent manager for peanuts, if i was him i would begin to question my own postion at the club give the relucatance to back him at a time when it impertive to do so I expect the usual posters to disagree with my views, but unless we invest smartly in players we will see a sharpish decline in the league and perhaps the loss of our manager more quickly than expected. Whether people like it our not transfer kitty along with good training management dictates results it would be nave to believe otherwise perhaps as it was 15-20 years ago

The posters who are criticising Hughes are not taking into consideration what position the club and squad was in when he found it. Without hughes this club would of been relgated thats for sure. He has spent less in his tenure than any other premier league club, infact some teams in the fizzy pop league have spent more. Some of our players are sub-standard but that’s what our manager has been dealt with as the club will not back him. If fans want to vent their anger ; vent it at the owner not our excellent manager , who has done a marvellous job

Are you the same guy that was harshly banned off this site last year and posts a lot on the BBC 606 boards? My apologies if you aren’t, just wondering that’s all?

Co2 lag is the time it takes Co2 levels to correlate with temperature rises, there is believed to be a lag of between 200-1000 years. If Co2 is the driving force behind the recent warming trends then this means that we must have been producing record levels of Co2 between the 10th and 18th centuries, the industrial revolution came some 70 years after the very latest date. This phenomenon has never been explained. I grasp what you saying about Carbon sinks and I actually agree with you, it makes perfect sense that rising temperatures will heat the oceans and the oceans ability to absorb Co2, plus micro-plankton do not like particularly warm waters. There is also the risk that methane stores in the ocean and under perma-frost tundra maybe released if the Earth continues to rise, this is potentially more dangerous than Co2 rises. There is also a danger that the global conveyer belt will turn off as a result of temperature rises, this is the death of the oceans and oceans ability to store carbon and produce oxygen will be nullified ( the surprising thing is , all this has happened several times before man came to abuse the planet) What people are not told though is what proportion of Co2 man actually contributes in comparison to natural carbon emissions “An average year of global wildfires releases more than 300 times the CO2 of one year’s total petroleum recovery combusted”

FFS Im getting rather fed up of repeating myself here. Colin if you want to have a dig at least try to read my posts. I have reiterated 6 times up until know , that I believe in global warming this is fact, what I am not yet totally convinced about is the man-made argument. There is a difference between Global warming & Man-Made Global warming We are not technically still in an ice-age, in the 1970’s the consensus amongst scientists was that we were heading for another ice-age, because they believed that the use of cfc’s in the earths biosphere would unnaturally cool the earth, rather than heat it up. 2000 years ago it was hotter than it is know fact and there was as much co2 present. If the earth is susceptible to warming and cooling periods as you say, then surely a vast majority of the current warming can be apportioned to record levels of solar activity via an eleven year sun-spot which is potentially causing a current a period of relative warmth Paul you telling me something I already know, but carbon stores via rainforests and bio-plankton activity is a completely different thing to Co2 lag. You have gone off at a tangent, and yes I saw the same programme were you are getting your information from it was on the BBC a couple of years ago Rising Co2 levels generally lag behind temperature rises by several hundred years not the other way around. So therefore Co2 levels must have been extremely high in the 17 & 18th centuries; which they were not.

Thats not me i just lifted a few quotes from the first link regarding the Stern report, which den had asked for Bangs head against a brick wall................ Several times. DEN Global Warming YES : Man-Made Global Warming Maybe

I have Demonstrated what I disagree with several times it’s just that you choose to ignore it, because it goes against what your personal core belief is. I will reiterate why I personally am not convinced 100% by the man-made theory: Why was it hotter 2000 years ago than it is now? Why a 1000 years ago were temperatures comparable to temperatures in the 21st century some 900 years before mass industrialisation. If man-made co2 is completely culpable for global warming, then why does rises in co2 have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around How can scientist predict temperatures in 30, 40n or 50 years if they only have an 80% chance of getting next weeks forecast correctly? You and other alike can believe what you like that is your prerogative. I may not agree with you but I respect that opinion. The trouble people such as myself are treated as nutcases if we don’t buy into the majority liberal opinion. by voicing any opinion which deviates are differs from the media-spun populist attitude

Why was the world actually warmer during the Roman empire, surely not down to the legions camp-fires. Den You seem unable to distinguish the differing positions on the matter: Some people don’t believe at all, Some believe in global warming but not man-made theory, Some believe in man-made theory ( to a degree) but are yet to be convinced 100% due to the lack of accuracy on co2 tracking, weather predicting etc ( and the fact that other theories have not been dispelled) (What i personally believe) And then there are people who are utterly convinced by man-made theory and deny that any other natural process is perhaps taking part in global warming process

Criticism’s of the Stern report Dodgy numbers behind stern report And more criticism Criticism’s of the Stern report, “While the Stern Review received significant press attention, it did not receive serious journalistic scrutiny” "The Stern report is little but grandiose scare-mongering. It would be irresponsible in the extreme for politicians to make major policy changes - and major economic commitments - on such specious arguments". Piers Akerman, Daily Telegraph, Australia "In order to manage risk, you must scare people". -- Lord Giddens, UK And one of the most telling things I have read on the man-made argument “According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect (from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007). This may seem like a rather technical issue, but it strikes at the very heart of the theory of man made global warming.”

I think you will find that there alot more than 20 scientists worldwide that are scpetical of the man-made global warming theory Without doubt politicians have pointed to the influence of man because of the extra revenue that can be raised via taxation (you can’t tax the sun), the fear and control it imposes on its citizens and it will slow the growth of newly industrialised nations. I honestly believe that this theory has some credence It’s rather like banging your head against a brick wall on this website, if you have a differing opinion from the liberal majority. If you actually read any of my posts I have not changed my own opinion, you should know im not that kind of poster I have never stated that world is not warming my point is that we do not know for any certain how much blame can be apportioned to its potential causes, and therefore if we do not know the effect of volcanoes & solar patterns on the atmosphere how do we know for sure the effect of Co2 ? We think that Co2 is the major cause and it is sensible to act however my own opinion is that I am yet to be convinced completely by that argument

Den from your own article , the truth is we simply do not know for sure what apportion of blame can be attached to natural and man-made processes. I can’t believe that you get attacked for stating that the man-made argument isn’t 100% accurate, even the adamant pro man-made theory couldn’t argue different. My own opinion is this world is warming fact, is it warming through man’s intervention probably, and is the world warming because of solar, natural patterns possibly. Until we improve the science to be fool-proof there is no point chastising people who have a differing opinion. The Bali conference is a small step in the right direction in terms of us as human- beings cutting back on our wasteful inefficient behaviour. Yet surely if we are to invest trillions in carbon efficient technology and carbon trading then maybe we should spend some of that cash on better weather forecasting models and research to give us some proper answers. As American said in a previous post we can’t with any certainty predict localised weather for the following week never mind global temperatures in 2030

My original post, please try to read Eddie before coming across all Presumptuous As ive said 3 times know the world is warming fact, is the world warming because of human activity Possibly? and there the distinction should be made. Times article The climate and the sun

Again Eddie you have onl skim-read my post and assumed my opinion, people dont seem to grasp that there is a difference between climate change which is a definate & man-made climate change which is a probable. Eddie you bang on about the Kyoto procal but how manu nations who signed up to actually adhered to their targets? You are extremely naïve if you don’t believe that global warming is not been used as political tool; it is a source of unlimited funding for governments especially us high tax paying westerners and acts as a double edged sword in restricting the growth of the newly emerging nations such as China, India & Brazil etc If these countries are so keen on the Environment why don’t they invest some money into things that will actually improve the environment? For starters spend some serious money on the science of climate change, to prove the doubters wrong and give us an unequivocal answer, at the moment all we get is probable or most likely type answers No-one Scientist to my knowledge has dispelled the notion than rising co2 levels follow increasing temperatures, rather than the other way around as we are lead to believe.

You clearly haven’t read my first post, where I stated that there is definitive evidence of climate change, what I am yet to be totally persuaded by is the role that humans are having on climate change. I have skim-read your article and it pretty much falls in-line with what you’d expect with those pushing man-made case. Yet for all of its vigour and well-written comment it cannot say 100% that the current warming trends are man-made. There is no full-proof scientific evidence which can answer as to whether or not human made emissions of Co2 levels are responsible for climate change, if there was a scientific model that shows 100% that humans are defiantly responsible for the current warming process then im pretty sure that the Kyoto treaty would off been ratified all those years back. The problem is that Scientists behind the theory of man-made global warming cannot provide us with 100% data to backup their theory. As for my own personal opinion I am yet to be convinced by any evidence from all sides of the argument such those you believe that climate change is affected by Solar and lunar activity

Some 100% proof evidence, they have yet to come up with yet. I have no doubt that pumping out Billions of extra tonnes of Co2 per year is having an affect somewhere. The problem is that science has not yet caught up with theory in that it can’t provide any concrete evidence regarding global warming. Den there are those scientists who are less vocal who have competing theories regarding global warming, who can provide as much solid evidence as those scientists shouting from the rooftops its who choose to believe. Personally I haven’t seen any argument that doesn’t have considerable holes in it; the fact is that science Is yet to provide us with the means to the answer. Eddie as far as im aware the US was at the Bali conference? If they were doing almost everything they can to fight it? They would of either not turned up at all, or rejected the proposal without discussion. The Neo-Cons are playing party politics with the GW and im not sure if they even have an agenda, there primary focus seems to be on the surge in Iraq. Im pretty sure that the Democrats if elected will sign and ratify any future treaty. The first person to use Global warming as a political tool was our very own iron lady, during the miners strike. She set-up a panel to investigate global warming and any future political policy

It been snowing so bad in Southern Italy that they have had re-direct flights from Brindisi airport. Ive still not seen any evidence of Man made global warming that convinces me 100%. There is a competing theory that is gaining strength , that declares that rising Co2 levels come after temperature increase not the other way around, so therefore something else other than Co2 is causing global warming. The earth is obviously warming; but it has done this 100’s of times over a multi-million year cycle. Vikings farming in Greenland and Romans producing wine in Northumberland etc Might the earth’s warming be more relevant to the cycle of solar radiation? In conjunction with rising Co2 levels. I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly I think what Flopsy is trying to get is that if the Earth carries on heating at it current rates this will affect the Earths natural ability to produce oxygen (rainforests destruction/fire, death of micro plankton) which will ultimately have an adverse affect on ocean conveyer system and the sea’s ability to both cool the earth and provide it with oxygen will cease. And yes its bloody feezing

The Wisdom of Alexander The Great: Enduring Leadership Lessons From The Man Who Created An Empire by Lance B. Kurke Book Description What "enduring leadership lessons" can be learned from Alexander's achievements, lessons which are relevant to our contemporary world, his impact on today's society. The book also does all the usual stuff you expect from antiquety generalsip, strategy etc etc. Anyone who is intetested in history, legacy or strategy this is a good-excellent read

And in another biggie, the ability to attract quality players rather than he Journeymen that the Old Firm rely on , and yes i believe that if rovers played Celtic & rangers ten times we would win at least half of those games. Celtic and rangers have grander names, nic stadia and more fans so do Clubs like Boca, River, Corinthians, PAOK etc etc. But can you definatly say they are bigger clubs than Rovers?. What the biggest advantage is the level of competition we face week in week out not just 4 difficult dometic league games and a hanfull of continetal games to raise yourself.

Agreed

Jose on England job

In my original post which Paul decided to pick on, I stated that Croatia are currently a better Team than England, and that England’s problems was not a lack of talent. There failings are down to a lack of Team ethos, willingness, poor coaching/tacticss and an unfounded celebratory status that most seem to enjoy too much. Their problem is not talent as suggested rather the above issues. PhilipL, You do realise that out of those players I listed none of them play for Dinamo Zagreb?, so it goes to show that you have decided that they are better players o the basis of 180 minutes of football against a disjointed and disinterred England team

So when we did the double over United recently, we can claim to have better players?