Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


G8 climate deal 'doesn't go far enough'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 June 2007
TONY Blair last night hailed a compromise deal between the world's richest countries to slash greenhouse gases as "a major, major step forward" - but environmentalists said it was barely worth the paper it was written on, as there were no firm targets.
At the G8 summit, the leaders of Britain, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan agreed to "seriously consider" halving greenhouse gases by 2050.

Their statement agreed harmful greenhouse gas emissions should stop ris
ing "followed by substantial global emissions reductions".

The European nations, Japan and Canada had been pushing for a commitment at the summit in Heiligendamm, Germany to halve emissions by 2050, but the G8 did not sign up to this.

The statement also did not commit to the target pursued by Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, under which global temperatures would be allowed to rise by no more than 2C before being brought back down.

But Mr Blair brushed aside criticism about the lack of binding numerical targets. In a nod to the US's recent conversion in the climate change debate, he said: "The important thing is we now have an agreement. This is a major, major step forward.

"There's now the recognition that we do need a global deal with everyone in it."

Such a deal would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, Mr Blair said, adding that a deal on the detail could not be expected at this summit.

The agreement would have to cover all the major countries, "the developed and developing world", including the US, China and India, he said.

John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK, said the deal fell short of what was needed to protect the climate.

"An agreement without targets is barely worth the paper it's written on," he said. "Bush says the US will 'seriously consider' substantial long-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, but that's like saying aid to Africa is a good thing then refusing to actually commit to donating a single dollar."

Antonio Hill, a policy adviser at Oxfam, welcomed the deal but said it was "profoundly disappointing" that some members, including the US, had failed to sign up to firm targets.

"This means that the world is still on track for global warming above 2C - dangerous climate change that will devastate poor countries and massively undermine the fight against poverty," he said. "Poor people will still face grave risks associated with catastrophic climate change, including increasingly severe droughts, floods and famines.

"The eight most powerful countries in the world had an unprecedented opportunity this week to boost global efforts to respond to the threat of global warming and sharply reduce the risks that poor people face.

"They have taken one step forward, but they should be running by now."

The G8 deal comes ahead of talks with the "plus five" - China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa - today. So far, Brazil, China and India have resisted signing up to cutting emissions, arguing their economies were playing catch-up with the G8.

POLICE INVOLVED IN CLASHES ON LAND AND SEA


POLICE rammed two inflatable speedboats that breached a security zone around the seaside resort where world leaders were meeting yesterday, tipping activists into the Baltic and injuring three of them.

Land access to the G8 summit venue, a luxury hotel in the small seaside town of Heiligendamm, was blocked for a second day as thousands of anti-globalisation protesters jammed roads and scuffled with riot police. Nearly 260 protesters were detained yesterday.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 June 2007 10:25 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change , The G8
 
1

Skirvy,

Auld Reek 08/06/2007 01:08:57

Where was the Rock concert? Orite Bob only pokes his head out of the woodwork every 20 or so years.

Why don't they just have one government for all these poor African countries with elected members from each country that the UN considers poor then all the Rich countries give the African continent government loads of money and they can sort the place out? And also Blair,Bush ect... should be putting their forces into Sudan to sort out the mess there. Once all these countries are stable then let them govern thereselves?

On the climate change thing, it'll never work. America can say "we'll do this, we'll do that" but will they really? No. Also for any sort of massive change to be made China & India need to sign up to make massive changes but they can't or there countries will become poorer. No win situation its just a bunch of spare pr*cks in Armani suits pretending to make any difference, power crazy muppets.

2

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 08/06/2007 02:23:33

-- Why don't they just have one government for all these poor African countries?

I reckon Africans are too varied and diverse for it to work. Their good leaders and administrations got wasted by the international bankers who claimed they were there to help them. Local tyrants banked money in Switzerland for themselves.

3

Skirvy,

Auld Reek 08/06/2007 02:26:52

#3 Its a nice Idea, but the world seems to be fuelled on greed!

4

John M,

Melbourne, Australia 08/06/2007 02:30:31

Still no clear evidence though that carbon dioxide has caused the warming, but also no clear evidence that the much-quoted temperature figures are correct.

Other scientists reject the hype. Just today I read of South African research that shows a very strong correlation between solar activity and climate.

And in The Scotsman today a report "Low winter sun 'is beaking hearts'" (see http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=894632007). This report claims that less sunshine means less vitamin D and this has a detrimental impact on calcium which seems to be important for blood vessel. The report says "The finding could explain why Scotland has one of the highest rates of heart disease in the world, with more than 10,000 deaths a year."

It seems that Scottish health would benefit enormously from some global warming. Perhaps though you just prefer to be martyrs to an unproven hypothesis.

5

Conan,

Here 08/06/2007 05:29:12

Excellent job, Mr. Bush.

6

Heidegger,

Fife 08/06/2007 06:07:35

Hot air - & 40 years too late!

7

Media 1,

cape town and stockbridge 08/06/2007 06:08:46

Environmentalists cannot be taken seriously. Hypocrites of the highest order and usually misinformed numpties.

8

HA,

North ayrshire 08/06/2007 07:30:59

See what Tony Blair did when there was a proposal for four turbines near his Sedgefield Constituency. What hypocrisy to lecture everyone else

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/blypocri...

9

,

08/06/2007 07:38:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 692175, Article id was mapped to record!
10

Dougie - Edinburgh,

08/06/2007 08:16:24

Anything without India and China is just p*shing in the wind - even if the USA signs up

11

Mart on Skye,

08/06/2007 08:53:20

The easy way to reduce average global temperature is to put more thermometers at the poles!

To get a true measure of global average would need an array of thermometers that was arranged equally round the earth such that the recording of each was representative of its locality.

Somehow I don't think that there is a complete one yet and there certainly wasn't one when temperature was started to be recorded so I'm wondering how confident we can be about the past trends quoted in so many publications and used in the many models constructed.

Or maybe I just don't have enough faith.

12

Abel Magwitch,

08/06/2007 09:01:21

The current international politics on global warming will not have much effect either way. The underlying trend is that over the next 40 years there will be (1) more depletion of fossil fuels and (2) worsening trouble in the Middle East. The shortage of fossil fuels (mainly oil and gas) will reduce carbon emissions. Electrical power generation will be mainly nuclear as it is in France now. Our "standard of living" in Britain will revert to what it was in the late 1940s. The interesting question for the politicians is, will we have the social discipline to put up with it? On the plus side, the air will be fresher to breathe, and lives will be saved by reduced traffic accidents.

As Betjeman wrote, "I have a vision of the future, chum ... the workers' flats in fields of soya beans.."

13

Neil,

9% Growth 08/06/2007 10:51:48

I think anybody remotely supportive of the warming swindle should dissociate themselves from the obscene filth of 9 "Big Fun". Let nobody ever suggest that the eco-fascist case is reasoned & scientific.

What has happened is that everybody knows perfectly well that the catastrophic warming story is truthful but instead of apologising for all the damage they have done are covering themselve with an anodyne statement about a "voluntary" deal which they can back away from without accepting personal responsibility.

14

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 10:58:11

#12, Abel- people will switch to coal instead, and there's enough of that to last a century or more.

"Big fun"? What on earth are you on about Neil?
The whole thing about a voluntary deal is that they will be able to ignore it and nothing will happen to them. Except that years later when things get rather warmer, it will be too late to do anything about it all.

15

Guthrie,

08/06/2007 10:59:32

Oh that Big fun- ok Neil.
Reported it.

16

Bert,

08/06/2007 12:12:25

Boring!

17

Nell,

Far from the Struan 08/06/2007 12:48:37

No. 10 Dougie:- Spot on. And maybe even more than that, we may be just p1shing into the wind full stop. Human greed may be the thing that prevents global warming from being stopped, whatever.

18

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 15:47:26

Like I said yesterday, I see a great many NON-SCIENTISTS shooting their mouths off, but all you are doing is expressing your "beliefs."

This ain't religion, folks, and what you take on "faith" doesn't count for jack squat.

I also see a lot of people quoting "other scientists." Apparently (since you are NON-SCIENTISTS), you do not understand the process of "peer-review." Anyone with a few letters after their name (like me), can write a paper and say anything they want. ANY experiment can be forced to produce a set of result as you want them to be, simply by excluding data which does not support you pre-formed conclusion. Then, you get to be quoted as an "other scientist."

REAL science, however, is strenuously peer-reviewed. Not only your conclusion is looked at, but also the data that you used, and the raw data you collected. So far, many more "anti-climate change" lobbyists have fallen under the sword of peer-review. Why is that? Because they have an agenda they are being PAID by the oil companies to promote. In the most notorious case, an Ameerican scientist used sattellite data to show that the earth was experiencing a major COOLING trend. Upon peer-review, it was discovered that the sattellite had been pre-programmed to ignore data outside a 10 degree "norm." Once the excluded data were analyzed, it was discovered that the "cooling" trend only applied if you excluded a majority of the days when the temperature was WELL above the norm.

So much for "other scientists."

If you are NOT a scientist or engineer, and you do not understand the raw data, then you are not speaking from knowledge, you are speaking from "faith." Your beliefs and your opinions belong in Church, or else (better yet), just keep them to yourself...

19

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 16:01:15

As I also stated yesterday, both sides of this fight are wasting your breath.

What you need to do, is go google "population growth rate."

We are DOUBLING the population of the planet every 30 years, and population growth is exponential, not linear (this means the more people there are, the faster the population grows). It's not 1,2,3,4,5,6...it is 1,2,4,8,16,32...

By roughly 2015, there will be more than 9 billion people on a planet which can (at the current level of technology) feed and provide for about 9 billion people. AFTER 2020, there will be more people on the planet than there are resources to share among them. In some areas of the world, this is already happening (How's your Cod supply, Scotland?).

Oil supplies are projected to run out in the next 50 years "at the current level of use." Except, it won't BE at the "current level" of use. As the population goes up, so will demand and usage. What do you think is going to happen when oil is selling at $250 a barrel? Or when WATER is selling for $3.50 a gallon, and a steak will cost you $70?

LONG before the earth becomes warm enough to influence the life which lives here, too many people and too few resources will have had a MUCH larger affect on your lifestyle/deathstyle. You can last weeks on a reduced calorie diet, but without water, you will be dead in a week.

And this, of course, pre-supposes, that someone does not give Iran an excuse to deploy the "Islamic Bomb." If THAT happens, all bets are off.

Basically, you people are wasting time spraying water on the barbeque grill while your house is on fire. Wake up and smell the coffee...

20

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 16:06:42

Abel Magwitch #12: Do not apply my previous two posts to yourself, you seem to at least have a grasp of what is actually going on. Shake the guy next to you, wake him up and hand him a cup of coffee : )

21

Mart on Skye,

08/06/2007 16:37:41

#19

Hm.. nice little rant there.

Non scientists who do not understand or have access to the raw data receive most of the conclusions filtered through the media, governments and organisations with a green philosophy and hence have to take what they hear on trust. An exercise in faith.

I know how science works but are we to assume that only "good" scientists are infallable?

Mart BSc. MSc etc. yes I have some of them too and a cup of coffee in my hand.

22

fred bloggs,

on the sidelines. 08/06/2007 17:39:40

Wow Rainbird, way to go! Well said; at last someone who knows what he's talking about. (Not forgetting Guthrie as well).

23

,

08/06/2007 18:02:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 18:05:57

Mart #22: "Non scientists who do not understand or have access to the raw data receive most of the conclusions filtered through the media, governments and organisations with a green philosophy..."

Have to disagree with you there, Mart (at least here in the USA).

MOST of the information the Anti-Climate Change people HERE are getting is coming from FOX News, the Fossil Fuels Industry and Rush Limbaugh. And 95% of it is just superfulous "information overload" which doesn't really prove or disprove anything. It is merely intended to cast doubt. For good reason.

If the Fossil Fuels Industry of the United States were to comply and cut emissions, the damage to our economy would be both immense and immediate. Big Business across the board would be affected. It is what it is, a choice between doing what "should" be done, and MONEY.

Here, the "Golden Rule" applies: He with the most gold, gets to make the rules."

Anyway, it doesn't matter to most of us living now. By the time the problem is actually bad enough to affect life on Earth, there will be MUCH more serious problems to worry about. When there are 12 Billion people living on a planet that can only reasonably support 9 billion, there are going to be wars competing for resources, starvation and shortages. THOSE will all happen much sooner and be much WORSE than the warming which will happen long after we are dead.

25

,

08/06/2007 18:07:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 694812, Article id was mapped to record!
26

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 18:14:17

Mart #22: "I know how science works but are we to assume that only "good" scientists are infallable?"

No, but the fact that legitimate science is peer-reviewed and examined for accuracy, insures that no one is publishing false facts intentionally. With peer reviewed articles from credentialed scientists, at least you can be sure that if the data or conclusions are wrong, then they are wrong because EVERYONE who reviewd them was stupid. And that doesn't happen very often.

On the OTHER hand, the "junk science" perpetuated by the anti-global climate change crowd is almost never peer reviewed, so you have one person, being paid to promote an agenda. When the article/data is reviewed, these media-whores just move on to the next topic *IF* they get caught. I referred to it as "information overload" due to the Marine Corp Principle that "when you can dazzle them with brilliance, flood them with bullsh--." They simply publish so much junk science so fast, that only occasionally are they actually caught. And In the meantime, the checks still keep rolling in from the fossile fuels industry.

27

,

08/06/2007 18:14:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

,

08/06/2007 18:22:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 694846, Article id was mapped to record!
29

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 18:36:11

#20 Rainbird

Rainbird said:

"We are DOUBLING the population of the planet every 30 years."


30 years ago there were 4 billion people. If the population were doubling every 30 years then there should be 8 billion today. Instead it's 6 billion, an increase of 50% not 200%.

30

,

08/06/2007 18:40:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

fred bloggs,

on the sidelines. 08/06/2007 18:44:37

31. What's a cronnie?

32

fred bloggs,

on the sidelines. 08/06/2007 18:47:12

30. Nomad: a doubling is 100% not 200%.

33

David E. Duke,

Louisiana 08/06/2007 18:47:53

Rainbird is correct, is fully support him.

34

David E. Duke,

Louisiana 08/06/2007 18:50:55

32. fred bloggs

Rule # 11 Do not use this fora to question spelling mistakes or be rude in differences of opinion.

35

David E. Duke,

Louisiana 08/06/2007 18:58:34

32. fred bloggs

Now I get it. Instead of acknowledging that Al Gore and all of his Hollywood Cronies are not Scientist and know nothing about Climate change, you want to distract people and make fun of Barney's typo.

36

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 19:06:23

#33 Fred

You're wrong Fred. You needed to have added the word "increase" after the "100 %" in your sentence. Had you, you would have been correct in your math but not in your conclusion that I was mistaken. If you have 10 and I have 100% of what you have then I also have 10 not the 20 you suggest.

Having said that, I would like to thank you for the cordiality of your reply.

37

fred bloggs,

on the sidelines. 08/06/2007 19:11:39

37. It was not necessary to include the word 'increase', that would be understood since it appears in your wording. Pity you can't admit when you're wrong.

38

fred bloggs,

on the sidelines. 08/06/2007 19:17:35

36. Gore clearly knows and understands a great deal more about climate change than the many AGW deniers (whose opinions are mostly based on prejudice and ignorance).

39

Form 2595,

MT 08/06/2007 19:22:53

39. fred bloggs

LOL

40

,

08/06/2007 19:44:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 19:52:42

#38 Fred

Wrong again Fred. You may infer what you want from your words but not from mine. Here is what you said:

"30. Nomad: a doubling is 100% not 200%."

Can we take you at your word or not?

42

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 19:55:04

#41 Hugo

Well, well, well, if it isn't my old friend Hugo. Hugo said:

"You are a pig dog, I think I smell sulfur."

If that's the case you can easily remedy it by removing your nose from your butt.

43

Hockey Fan,

cda 08/06/2007 19:58:04

#36

Great point, it's laughable how the liberal lemmings follow Al Gore & the Hollywood types around like they are the 2nd coming of Christ as if they knew the first thing about Science. It's like how they follow Michael Moore & Jane Fonda around as their leaders on military matters.

HF

44

57Nomad,

california 08/06/2007 19:59:19

#39 Fred

Are you aware that Al Gore flunked out of Divinity School?

45

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 08/06/2007 20:02:48

-- I see a great many NON-SCIENTISTS shooting their mouths off"

And me, I'm just an engineer.

46

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/06/2007 20:04:55

#42 Nomad
Fred Bloggs is correct.

Fred was correcting your incorrect use of "200%", which should have been "100%".
His statement "a doubling is 100% not 200%", in the context of his introduction "30. Nomad" is entirely correct.

47

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 20:25:43

Nomad57 #30: The current population of Planet Earth is variously estimated between 6.5 and 6.7 Billion people. Please excuse the rounding to significant digits, since the EXACT population of the earth can never be known.

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

http://www.webtemplateszone.com/freestuff/scripts/poptick...

http://www.worldometers.info/


Also, along the same vein, let me formally RETRACT the 30 year doubling and replace it with 43 year doubling. This was simply an error, not rounding to significant digits.

You are correct, and I was wrong.

Having conceded to the new growth rate, does that significantly change anything I wrote above? Not really, it just happens about 10 years later.

(also, an increase from 4 billion to 6.7 billion is a 67.5% increase, not 50%. That makes the earths population 11.2 billion in 30 years, which still exceeds the 9 billion from above. Just thought I'd mention it)

48

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 20:28:42

Nomad57: BTW, I read the article by Chapman and Walsh in the other thread, and replied to it.

I left you a link to the complete paper, and otherwise noted that you cited an article which proved you wrong...I thought that was a hoot.

Also, although you decry the UN as a politically motivated organization, you also cited a source that relied on IPCC data. Perhaps you should have paid closer attention to what you were reading?

49

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 20:31:04

The paper can be found here

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/Antarctic.paper.chapwalsh.200...

BTW, you DO know that when you cite a source, you are supposed to cite a source that proves the point you are trying to make, right? I mean, if you are going to post sources which prove you are wrong, then what am I supposed to do?

Thanks?

50

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 20:41:38

For more information on the "Population Bomb" (which will affect your life LONG before Global Climate Change does), I submit the following:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/populationgrowth.htm

The work is heavily footnoted, and the sources in the bib are readily attainable (also, it is not full of really big words, so most people should be able to understand it)...

51

,

08/06/2007 21:02:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

,

08/06/2007 21:06:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

UPS Driver,

TN 08/06/2007 21:17:05

RAINBIRD LOGIC

Rainbird & Wally were sitting on a bench in Arizona talking, and Wally says to Rainbird, "Which do you think is farther away... Florida or the moon?"
Rainbird turns to Wally and says "Helloooooooooo, can you see Florida ?????"

54

,

08/06/2007 21:24:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 695201, Article id was mapped to record!
55

Doria,

Borsalino 08/06/2007 21:53:49

54. UPS Driver, TN

You made my day, very good.

56

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 22:06:49

Why Americans are ignorant:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070608/lf_afp/usevolutionre...

39% believe that is was "definitely true" that an act of "magic" created mankind. Only 18% accepted the scientific explanation. But wait...it gets worse.

Another 27 percent said that it was "probably true" that an act of magic created mankind.

66% of Americans would rather accept on BLIND FAITH that mankind was magically created out of a ball of mud. These are probably the same people who believed that "Saddam had WMD" and the Bush administration "knew where they were."

I assume something near that same 66% would believe ON BLIND FAITH that the Earth is not getting warmer, despite what the evidence says to the contrary.

And you people call the Muslims insane...

57

,

08/06/2007 22:26:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 695316, Article id was mapped to record!
58

Tyson Man,

DE 08/06/2007 22:28:09

57. Rainbird

If you hate the US so much why don't you just move? I'm sure bill1, Halitosis, or TSW would take you in.

59

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 22:41:49

#59 Tyson Man: "If you hate the US so much why don't you just move?"

No, why don't YOU move? We have a long tradition in America of believing in Human Rights and Liberty. We believe in FREEDOM OF RELIGION, which also implies freedom FROM religion.

If you want to wage war without cause, torture people, or cram your religion down others throats, YOU should be the one to move to somewhere where they think like you do...like Iran.

I LOVE American, friend, and I spent 16 years in the Marine Corps defending her...from people like you.

60

Rainbird,

Illinois/USA 08/06/2007 22:46:52

#59 Tyson Man: "If you hate the US so much why don't you just move?"

Besides, you "conservatives" have done such a good job of discrediting yourselves, that you won't be able to peddle a used car, let alone your philosophy of war, hate and oppression. Now that you people have trashed yourselves and shown your true colors, America is going to be a WONDERFUL PLACE to live again in about 5 years.

I Hope President Hillary declares all of you "Enemy Combatants. And I hope AttyGen. Bill Clinton approves torturing you...

61

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/06/2007 07:55:14

Alot of hot air is being produced and the inventive Australians have even proposed a giant vertical stucture that could generate electricity from it. But how will it affect me and you? I forsee a "diretif" arriving from the EU to my backyard boatyard and our postmen having to swop their custom bikes for 10 ton trucks to deliver them all. It'll never go though the letter box so just leave it beside the lawnmower, Mr Postie.

I admit using a rather toxic and expensive Danish varnish on the dink because the customer insisted on it. But I'm sure when he gets your directive he'll get into saving the Environment. And our planned move from ultra galoot to high tech frontyard shipyard will need some scratching about the think pods if they have them in Brussels. For my New Zealand designer has put BIG diesels in the engine rooms to get us from point A to B and to C. The North Sea just next door to the Arctic so we need heating for the wenches in our equal oppo crew; all power to the winches and ROVs. Has Robert Gordon University developed better alternatives anent this thinking mariner's emissions to our atmosphere.

62

Kim Jong-il ???,

North Korea 09/06/2007 10:19:21

61. Rainbird

You & I think alike.

63

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2007 13:59:56

Hey rainbird, you've explained you understanding of BOD, but what you ahve failed to do is relate that to a global level.

Your refernce to BOD of distilled water was only a rather a feable attempt to put us in awe of your massive intellect. In the process you have shown yourself to truly be an engineer only capable of processing limited data at a time to the exclusion of all other relevant information.

No that clever, no that smart, yir bums oot the windae.

by environmental engineer i reckon you must mean that you work in the sewers of detroit as only someone who is permanently in the dark and up to thier oxters in keich could possible spout what you do.

64

Rainchicken,

Illinois/USA 09/06/2007 14:54:57

65. Saoghal Beag

Hey! Stop picking on me, I'm an idiot.

65

Rainbird/,

Illinois/USA 09/06/2007 16:45:59

# 66 is not me, I've reported that inpersonater to the Scotsman. And while I have your attention I'd like to get something off my chest.

Forgive me for my broken record, I keep saying "White House Office of Global Communications" It's due to my turrets and the load in my pants. I'm a hopeless broken record. I think I'm cute but nobody likes me.

66

Guthrie,

09/06/2007 17:04:41

Rainbird- you should know by now that there are plenty of people willing to work for free spouting complete rubbish. I wouldn't waste your time arguing with them, just demonstrate they are talking mince and move on.


(mince being a word commonly used in Scotland to mean rubbish)

67

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2007 17:37:40

#66, 67#, both of you, tee hee.

is that turrets or terrets?, just asking.

68

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2007 17:41:06

#31 cronnie means friend, but is most commonly used in cronnism where people in power favour their friends for posts and contracts, in the third world we refer to that as corruption.

69

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2007 17:41:48

it's 24C in scotland today, can't waste time in here when the sun is shining.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.