sydney_saint

I do think some people's opinion on JWP is stuck about 4 years in the past. Most of the time has got the ball so far he has played it forward, and tbh that's the way he has played for the last couple of seasons.

The kit clash is absolutely fantastic

Really felt this one in my soul. It was clearly not his day. Now he has to try and bounce back when he should have been well done the order.

If this does go to penalties, please don't give one to Smallbone. It looks like his fairytale won't happen today. Really fear those misses will be in his head.

Commenters mistaking Djenepo for Salisu. One is a giant beast of a centre back, the other made of pipe cleaners. Must be nice to be earning their salaries!

Really devastating news. No one should die just doing their job. Rhetoric needs to die down. Wtf is wrong with some people

I think there are a few things that are wrong. First is the leadership at the top. Mike Riley was a shit referee, and making him in charge of these muppets is a recipe for disaster. Hugely out of his depth, arrogant and doesn't understand football. I'm not surprised the refs last were inconsistent. The messaging from the top was hugely inconsistent and an utter mess. The refs should still have been better, but fuck me we had about five interpretations of the handball rule in one season. When you have a bunch of non talented refs, you should at least give them a consistent framework to work with. Instead we have shit refs with shit tools. More has to be done to retain referees at grassroots level. I'm not sure what the drop out rates are, but I see Kent said they had a 24% drop in officials last season. Partly covid, but also mostly the conditions. They need to go down hard on people who abuse refs. It's ridiculous how normalised it is to abuse a 16 year old refereeing some 10 year olds. Increase the pool of refs, and we will see standards go up.

I have a golden rule in life. If ever I am in situation where I am talking, debating or arguing with someone, and either one of us makes personal attacks or attacks on credibility, then I will simple walk away from it. Whether it is my partner, friends, some dude in the pub or online. Because if someone is at that stage, they have likely closed off their mind. Why should I continue to answer your questions if I am just opening up myself to personal attack? Why would I do that? You have now jumped in to attack my credibility twice now. I get anxiety very easily online, so I am not going to put myself through any more potential attacks on me. You will also note that despite the fact I have worked in this area for a long time, I have not once made a personal attack on a single person or brought their experience into it. I could easily have done so as well but respect is a massive deal for me. I will answer your question. But it is the last one before you go on ignore. It's gonna be long, and no doubt you will dismiss it as rambling, but then that soon won't be my problem. To directly attribute the rise to 300ppm to 400ppm can not be directly observed as we do not have a control planet. What we can do is thousands of other studies that demonstrate the link. We can look through historical records to demonstrate the relationship between GHGs and global surface temperature rise. We can do studies on the net impacts of natural cooling and warming forces. We do studies on the ground observing the impacts of climate change. We do studies on causation of additive human emissions as well, and seeing as you are very interested in it, it took 10 minutes to grab some articles on it. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf , https://www.scirp.org/html/12-4700202_36931.htm, http://epa.niif.hu/02500/02583/00058/pdf/EPA02583_applied_ecology_2019_02_50675080.pdf https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR_Ch3_Detection_and_Attribution.pdf, plus many more. We do thousands of studies to put together an unbelievably coherent picture. I used this in the climate change thread when replying to Scally, but I am going to copy and paste it here as well. Take a look at this and what do you see? Of course. It's a rabbit. Now imagine the rabbit was made by thousands of people, each creating their own little square to make the rabbit over decades. Maybe some of the squares are a little faded, and maybe some of them aren't even complete yet as we don't have the tools to create that square yet. Regardless. It is still a rabbit. You may see one with a thread hanging out, and untangle that single square. Maybe even take a couple of little squares. Well? It is still a rabbit. There are just so many thousands of robust other squares there that you need to untangle before it doesn't look like a rabbit. The process of getting research published is long and grueling and often for little reward. I had a paper published over three years after I completed it. The checks and challenges is ridiculous tough and brutal. The fact there are thousands of studies that have gone through this process should give anyone confidence. This false claim you have that everyone sings from the same book to protect funding is pure fantasy to be honest. It requires a conspiracy that thousands of researchers, all 195 nation states that sign off the IPCC report line by line, institutional investors and major companies including fossil fuel companies are all in on it. None of them have managed to provide evidence to challenge the existing model, many of whom have spent hundreds of millions collectively trying to do so. Every single scientific concept is always and permanently open to be challenged. But evidence is required. But here is my suggestion to you before I put you on ignore. If you truly have evidence that the science is wrong, or that you can provide evidence for a counter argument that explains the warming outside the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions, then sell it man! Don't just tap away angrily at a keyboard! There are so many companies and nation states that would pay a kings ransom for it. You wouldn't be sitting behind a screen right now. You would be on a Caribbean island getting served cocktails by scantily clad locals! So just do it! P.S. Happy to answer everyone elses questions if anyone is interested.

Whilst I get your point there are peoples jobs attached to climate change, you must remember that is dwarfed completely by the number of jobs and economic dependency on fossil fuels. It's like people saying that the Government exaggerated Covid for the sake of the pharmaceutical companies. Why would every country simultaneously trash their economy for the sake of a handful of a companies? It makes no sense at all. Don't get me wrong, those companies are corrupt as hell, but the idea that everyone is suddenly going to bend over for them is insanity. Same logic here. Why would everyone be protecting a relatively handful of climate change jobs? I've answered plenty of questions on climate change on here. I've only asked one back, albeit several times, and so far everyone has ignored it. If climate change wasn't happening as stated in the IPCC reports, why haven't the oil and gas companies, oil dependent nations or other fossil fuel industries such as aviation, provided any credible research demonstrating it? They would be applauded to high heaven if they could show most Governments, including the UK, that it wasn't happening. Why have Exxon, who spent millions on climate denial, accepted the science? Just for fun, here is Exxon predicting warming attached to ppm all the way back in 1982. Turns out they pretty much nailed it. Quickly, on the medieval warming, that's a long debunked theory that gets bandied about. There has been no study showing there was a discernable deviation in global temperatures.

Apologies, not sure if I am fully following your point? If it is around whether there are factors outside humans that cause climate change, then the answer is absolutely yes. No one is saying otherwise! There are numerous feedback systems that can accelerate and decelerate warming and we have a damn good understanding of them. So 33 million years ago, the ppm was somewhere around 1500-2000 if memory serves me right (I'm actually super busy today so don't have time to dig out the numbers) and several degrees warmer. Which demonstrates what I was saying that increase greenhouse gas emissions have been linked to temperature changes throughout the planet's history.

I debated Scally plenty in the Climate Change thread with lots of back and forth. I am happy to talk to others here as well. You however have decided to make it personal by attacking my professional credibility with laughably baseless claims. I am happy to debate with others, but I ain't sinking to that level.

To be honest, there have been so many studies on global surface temperature rise and concentration of greenhouse gas emissions accounting for the last few centuries (and others tackling thousands or millions of years). It is not a case of someone doing a study in 1900, and us doing it now and saying 'hang on a minute, look, these numbers are different! Something is going on!'. There are hundreds, if not thousands of studies from different researchers, different methodologies, and consistent and rigorous challenges to those methodologies. And regardless of what is used, the conclusions are always similar. That increased concentrations in greenhouse gas emissions leads to increase global surface temperatures. In fact, it has such solid evidence behind it that the burden if proof really is to demonstrate that it is not the case. Which is absolutely encouraged and conducted in the research. About 90% of science is challenging existing theory. If it could be legitimately demonstrated that the Earth has not warmed to ~1 degree in the last centuary, and that the concentration of GHGs has also not gone up, that the oil and gas companies, russia, the saudis, even the UK, would not be whipping out their collective dicks and saying this science is bullshit and we have proof?

Around 3 million years ago they were roughly around the levels they were today. Around 33m they were much, much higher. Correspondingly, 33 million years the global surface temperature was several degrees warmer.

I'm a bit late to the debate, but happy to answer a couple of questions on climate change. Or at least recommend GM looks at the Climate change thread where I have already done my best to carefully explain the science and processes. For his reference, I work in climate change and have done for over a decade. I haven't read through everything, but I will answer the first question though on ppm, where you say you don't understand the link between ppm and global surface temperature. And that's absolutely fine, there isn't an expectation for everyone to be a climate scientist. But whether or not people understand it, it doesn't stop it from being true. We know that the concentration of ghgs in 1900 was around 300ppm. Slightly less by some estimates. We also now that as of now that the number is up to just past 400ppm. In the same timeframe we have directly measured a global surface temperature rise of around 1 degree. Both of these facts have been measured and verified from numerous independent studies across the world. They aren't open for debate, unless someone can provide a clear, robust and repeatable study that shows it isn't the case. No one can. Even the oil and gas companies with all their billions can not show that There are also many, many studies which scientifically demonstrate the link between increased concentration of ghgs, and global surface temperature rise which are directly backed by what we have observed. Not just now, but also throughout earth's history. They are intrinsically linked.

Come on man, you just can't wait to have a dig at him. I've seen many stupid red cards. This wasn't one of them. Even if it is a red, our game is to press and force mistakes. He's been a little unlucky that on another day it would be yellow.

Chuck a blue shirt on him and it's a yellow.

To be honest, the best game Djenepo has probably had for us was when we last played Chelsea. Although he pretty much ended up snapped in that game.

I think we should all aspire to be Redmond in our own lives. To be able to put in mediocre to poor performances in our job, and still be fine. Must be such a nice, stress free life for him.

The conclusions are still going to be similar, but just saying using 'appearances' isn't really fair. The likes of Djenepo, Walcott and Tella are mainly getting their appearances from subs, whilst Redmond nearly always gets the full game. If you take Djenepo, yes he's got 50 appearances. But he's only played the full match ten times. Likewise Redmond for most of his career here gets the full game. He has played the full 90 for 115/172 appearances. For Djenepo, when you take into his minutes played, he's only played the equivalent of 28 full games for us. So his expected goals per game if he played every game in a season would be 0.1. Redmond's too would be higher, but not much higher at .14. It doesn't take away that both are dismal stats so the conclusion is still the same. But that Djenepo is closer than Redmond, which more shows how poor Redmond is than a positives for Djenepo.

Come on. Get a grip. We were poor today but Norwich have lost 16 EPL matches in a row. I'd hate to see what you you would be saying if we did that. We will rightfully be heavy favourites to beat them

Redmond was Redmond. Plays like a terrified nipper rather than a senior player in the side. Che isn't stepping up. Armstrong still adapting And can someone explain to me why we are playing Elyounoussi? He was deemed not good enough and sent off on loan. Suddenly he is back and starting matches, yet I haven't seen anything that makes me think he has improved. He is slow both physically and decision-making. I don't even know how technically good he is. Whenever he strikes the ball, like in the first half, there is no oomph behind it. Until we get improvement in these four positions, we ain't going anywhere. They need to take responsibility

Don't think it has been quite as bad as some are making out. Sure, we are nowhere near our best, but we have still been the better side. Need to see more movement and quality from the forward four, especially El, Redmond and Che. El is working hard, but I am still very unconvinced he has progressed from the player that we shipped on loan. Armstrong movement is good, but quality isn't there. Feel a bit for KWP. He's not a left back. He was one of our top performers last season and now he has been hung out to dry on the left.

Good opportunity for a win today. Wolves have been awful this season. In particular I would like to see Che really target Coady. For all the plaudits he gets for his chest thumping, he tends to get demolished by any physical striker and can only really play in a back three where he's got plenty of cover. Saiss is also pretty shit so there really is an opportunity here, especially with their goalscoring issues

This is going to be a tricky one I think. On the one hand those saying don't judge a player on one game absolutely have a fair point. On the other, Torino were a hot pile of turd last season. If they were in the premier league they would likely have been relegated. Fair enough if we want to pinch their best players, even awful sides have great players. But picking up their third choice centre back for 7m has them laughing more than us. If we had picked up Michael Hector from Fulham for that price doubt people would be feeling good about it.

To be honest, there is quite alot of unfair sweeping statements you have made here. Most are not self righteous. Like most groups, you get a very vocal minority. To be honest, I hate that minority as well. They act holier than thou...whilst happy to wear polyester clothing made in sweat shops whilst polluting waterways. They can honestly go fuck themselves. Due to the nature of my work, I have known many vegetarians and vegans, as well as being one myself. Most of them are the kindest, most lovely people that you could possibly meet. The idea of them being aggressive and self righteous is really laughable. They are more likely to get overexcited about discovering a vegan carrot cake than get aggressive at someone. Only that doesn't make stories for the likes of The Sun to run with. You also won't come across them on the street as they are quiet about it. But the booming veggie market is testament that there are now loads, and most of them happily getting on with things. What you experienced in Greggs was absolutely wrong. But people act as though the self righteousness only comes from vegans, but it definitely happens the other way around as well. I've lost count of the amount of times when a meat eater, whether it be family or an acquaintance or some randomer in the pub, has aggressively challenged me on my beliefs. Particularly when I first went veggie around 12 years ago. They will do it out of nowhere as well. If someone is genuinely curious and asks me, I do explain. Otherwise I (and most others) keep ourselves to ourselves. Yet I have had random aggressive responses, trying to point out that my diet is 'unhealthy', always some pop-science shit about protein, some crap about plants have feelings, or any sort of rubbish they can find. Again, doesn't make headlines for papers to run with, easier to poke fun at the occasional stupid vegan. But I reckon most vegetarians/vegans have been on the receiving end more than the giving end.