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.

I'm not advocating getting rid of him, just that I'm losing faith in hime. It is based more on performances, his own decisions and the inability to improve certain aspects of the team and remove basics errors. I'm not really judging him on the results themselves. How anyone can't be seriously concerned with the level of performances for the past two months or so really worries me. It's a tough pill to swallow, but he has to be held accountable for them and they have been well below par. Is there a single person on this board who would have accepted being out of the UEFA Cup, League Cup and FA cup whilst sitting 9th in the table at this point in the season? You can defend him all you want with the fact that he doesn't have as much money as some others, but he gets a lot of money to do his job and I think he has a core group of some very good players.

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

Here, here.

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

One way of looking at it i suppose, who's the one team he is going to want to impress most after last summer!

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?

No all I've done is given you a perfectly simple explanation of how CO2 levels increase after a period of warming. What is a CO2 lag? I don't know.

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”

Bazza,

Nothing personal, but just why are you so against the climate change theory?

Most independent scientists are now firmly convinced that climate change is real and is happening and that it is going to severly effect the world over the next 50-100-200 years.

Please will you let me/us know why you don't beleive in it. I'm just really interested as to why in the overwhelming face of scintific evidence you take the opposite view. Is it something religious?

It's not really like those people who are having a go at the theory of evolution is it?

Cheers

Colin

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

This is easy, I think you'll have to come up with better questions. Answers to these points are available to anyone in general education, who waches the TV or reads a paper.

We know, Geography "O" level, the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling; a couple of examples I can dredge up from my O levels, we had the Medieval Warm Period (800 - 1300) and the Little Ice Age (1500 - 1850). I think (could be wrong) we are technically in an Ice Age at present though this is more to do with a scientific definition than wooly mammoths roaming the planet!! This was taught in schools 40 years back and I don't think is open to challenge.

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

Throughout history there have been natural increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. The current rapid increases in CO2 levels are thought to be primarily responsible for global warming, i.e a more rapid warming than would occur under "natural" circumstances, without man's influence. Now I'm surmising with this, I can't give you a link but I've read it on several occassions; natural stores of CO2 are oceans and forests. World warms up, water temperatures rise, oceans' ability to store CO2 is reduced consequently there is an increase in atmospheric CO2 after a period of warming. CO2 is stored in carbon sinks in forests, temperatures increase, wild fires become more common, forests burn releasing stored CO2 and fewer trees available to store CO2 afterwards, natural CO2 concentrations increase after a period of warming

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.

Bazza, I've got to take issue with you here.

You state "........it did not receive serious journalistic scutiny" and then go on to quote a "Journalist".

Piers Ackerman would have to be the most right wing "journalist" in Australia. He is in the pocket of big business and a supporter of ultra rightwing politics. He would argue that day was night and night was day if it suited his politics. Before using him as support to back an arguement, be aware of the fact that he's a Murdoch employee, and check out some of the other tripe he's written

I thought that the troposphere (the lowest level of the earth's atmosphere) was getting warmer, correct me if I'm wrong.

Thats not me i just lifted a few quotes from the first link regarding the Stern report, which den had asked for

You use that question as a reason to doubt Global warming

DEN Global Warming YES : Man-Made Global Warming Maybe

Of course I can see the different positions.

What I don't understand, is when someone comes out with a statement that calls something into question, then can't demonstrate why they say that - and have nothing of real substance to back it up. It makes me suspicious of their real motives.

I suppose it's my background of electrical CNC machine repair. Facts, nothing else. By all means ask where, when, how, but never ask why - n' all that! Troubleshooting.

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

Bazza?

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.”

Jonathan Porritt was on radio this morning, discussing global warming. He points to the fact that around 20 scientists world wide, go against the overwhelming number of scientists who back the global warming evidence. Out of these 20, not one of them have produced or written a paper on the subject. They simply .

[/quote

This guy was Obviously talking out of backside. If checked the net and there 100’s if not thousands of recognised scientists who either do not believe the man-made theory or believe that the science is at the stage where it is fool-proof.

Journal the myth of man-made global warming

A list of scientists who have revesed their opinion on man-made global warming, several were key players behind kyoto

Scientists reversing their opinoin after new review

Quote Bazza:

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 You can't back that up with any science whatsoever, that's why this debate continues. What you are saying there, is that global warming doesn't exist, it's all a political argument.

Global warming does exist fact, but we are not completley sure as too its causes and what blame should be apportined to man's influence. GW is different to man-made GW.

Jonathan Porritt was on radio this morning, discussing global warming. He points to the fact that around 20 scientists world wide, go against the overwhelming number of scientists who back the global warming evidence. Out of these 20, not one of them have produced or written a paper on the subject. They simply say they don't believe the evidence - which is now your position, different from where you started.

You need 100% proof that global warming is real, yet link to any minor article that doesn't approve the theory.

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

Not everyone's impressed with the times author.

The truth of the climate and the sun.

Den from your own article

Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate

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

Bazza, applause all round. You managed to retreat from your initial statement at record speed.

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

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

Yes I'm sure the democrats will, but then the democrats also have fewer links with oil and several other business sectors that have a lot to lose from these sorts of agreements. The fact that they've decided to attend doesn't really say much, they have had so much pressure put on them over the past few years that if they hadn't turned up there would have been an uproar. The only real thing you can look at is that the one major treaty regarding climate change that has been passed by virtually everyone, that being the Kyoto protocol, has not been signed or ratified by the United States. To further that point, they kyoto protocol doesn't even set out any requirements for developing nations apart from the need for them to monitor their situation, the actual requirements relating to reductions are placed purely on already developed nations. I have no problem with you not believing in global warming, I think it's silly, as you have absolutely no scientific training and you are going against the vast majority of experts who spend their lives researching this, but still it hasn't been proven; however, to come up with some sort of a conspiracy theory that basically has nothing to support it is going a bit too far. Global warming can be used as a political tool, just like any other issue, but that doesn't mean that it has been created for political reasons. Gore wouldn't be back in the limelight without it, the democrats would probably have slightly less support, but they haven't paid off the scientific world just so that they can get a couple million (at most) more votes come 2008.

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

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.

The only 100% truth that you must see, will be when global warming either happens, or doesn't happen.

Thats not the debate global warming is happening Defiantly

From the Stern review:

This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years.

And there lies the crux of the counter-argument, just because we don’t know defiantly what is causing global warming; we are assuming its man-made Co2 because it’s the most likely cause.

An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.

Most climate models show that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases is very likely to commit the Earth to a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures.

Again Science is unable to to give us a definite answer 2-5 degrees C is a hell of difference in terms of global mean temps

This level of greenhouse gases will probably be reached between 2030 and 2060. A warming of 5°C on a global scale would be far outside the experience of human civilisation and comparable to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. Several new studies suggest up to a 20% chance that warming could be greater than 5°C.

Link to more of the Stern review

So, which part of the science is wrong Bazza and what about the overwhelming body of scientific evidence? I would have thought that when Scientists present overwhelming conclusions, that we laymen might accept it, unless we had real reason to doubt it.

I can’t see why you have such a problem with my opinion, I have no-where stated that global warming isn’t down to man-made Co2 levels, its just that neither side of the debate have any evidence that is truly compelling. It seems that the main point of those championing the man-made Co2 theory, is that it must be that by process of elimination; which is why they have had such a struggle convincing world governments as the science isn’t compelling enough to convince people 100%.

Like ive said you can believe what you like , that’s you’re entitlement. I am yet to be swayed by either argument; until some boffin can come onto the television and say that man-made Co2 emission is defiantly behind the rise in global temps whilst dispelling all the other competing theories, people such as myself have the right to reserve judgement. Although I believe the Bali conference is big step in the right direction in trying to change our polluting ways

I suspect you wouldn't accept any evidence of climate change Bazza.

Anyhow, in reply to your point above: in particular -Misleading arguments 2.

Read all of this

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

You will just have to rely on the worlds' leading scientists then Bazza. They're convinced.

As explained HERE.

What would it take to convince you?

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

Friends of ours said it was snowing on Corfu.

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

Without getting sucked into a discussion about the definition of 'big club' I would contend that Rangers with all its tradition, success and large fanbase could readily be described as 'grander' than Rovers. Having said that we are a much better team, with better players, more money and we play in a superior competition.

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.

Watched Eastern Promises and American Gangster on the weekend

AG was awesome, Denzel is still the best at this kind of role in Hollywood.

Eastern Promises was quite good however the ever annoying Naomi Watts ruined it somewhat with the horrible acting. Viggo Mortensen was ruthless.

Agreed

You do understand this is a team game? Raw talent is irrelevant it is the team performance that counts. You have rated Gerrard as a world class player, and I imagine would say the same about Lampard. Stick those two pieces of raw talent into the same midfield and they both disappear for 90 minutes. Therefore the raw talent is wasted, one of them has to be dropped to allow the other to flourish. Talent alone is not enough.

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

but mention bodyline and they get their corks in all of a quiver

For what its worth, I think Croatia has better players man for man, because they beat England twice.

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