sydney_saint

Brilliant result! In particular I thought Romeu and JWP were incredible and really led the energy and fight in the team. We deserved to win that, which is really unbelievable when you consider that every player in their first xi cost more than our record signing, and most players on their bench as well. Anything that shoves it up Pep is always satisfying. I was one of the ones who didn't like the starting lineup, particularly Salisu dropped (who was immense when he came on) and Redmond starting. I think some of the people dragging up the responses are just a little sad really. Managers do get set ups wrong, so to basically suggest we aren't allowed to debate a lineup is a bit crap. This place will be hell boring if we just nod along and say every single decision made is bound to be the correct one because the manager knows best. There have been times where some have said he nailed the line up- and we got dicked. It works both ways. I personally thought the lineup wasn't right today. I am absolutely thrilled to be wrong. Life moves on.

I wonder if there is a single person anywhere who thinks that it were Saints who did that challenge (or any other smaller EPL club) that it would get overturned? Fuck this league

Doing much better than I expected, especially after seeing the lineup! A couple of players predictably terrible. JWP and Romeu immense in the midfield. JWP in particular is a one man press. I know to get 0-0 at halftime at the Etihad is a good achievement and not to be sniffed at. But I kinda feel disappointed we didn't put them under a bit more pressure. It's not like they are playing well and we are putting a backs to the wall heavy shift in. City have been pretty poor, and it kinda feels that they only need to step it up a little bit and it is game over. They have Mahrez, Foden, KDB, Torres all on the bench. One of them is bound to play well.

God damn, how do you pick apart this mess. Best CB this season -dropped. Djenepo has been decent defensively this season. So the best thing to do against one of the best attacking sides is to drop him right? Redmond dreadful as usual, so it is essential he keeps his place. Elyounoussi who we have shifted on loan last couple of seasons cos he's too slow is the perfect attacking player against one of the fastest backlines.

To be fair he's right. He said what a team would 'need' to do to get most out of Redmond. That's very different to say we should do it

About 6 months ago I really laid into Redmond's performances and showed that no other attacking player has been given more chances than him over the last five seasons. Despite all these chances, he's near the bottom for goals/assists out of all the attacking players used in that time (when taken into account he's played lots more). After the Bournemouth game, people started raving about him and said he's a confidence player and to watch him get better. We are 6 months down the line and he is just as poor as ever. His game hasn't progressed since he arrived and he's now just a squad blocker for other players, particularly younger players, who deserve their chance.

This is the sort of game our opponents will be saying 'Typical [insert that fan's club]. Playing a side that has sold its best players, hasn't won all season, and has conceded 7 goals already this season. So it's a given that we will generously give them their first 3 points this season." Only this time. Can we fucking actually do it and get the 3 points.

I'm probably just misinterpreting and you are just referring to the Bertrand of last season. But if comparing to Bertand through most of his time here, Perraud is looking quite a way off that. For me he's looked okay given he's in a new country, new team and he's pretty young. Though I would be expecting his level to go up from here though to be considered a fantastic signing, but happy to give him time to do so.

Lots of focus on the obvious failures like Carillo, Hoedt and Lemina, but that Gunn signing doesn't get the attention it deserves. It's a ridiculous amount of money for what was a third choice goalkeeper.

More climate scientist. My first job was working in the field. I then worked for several years for a company that has been referenced in this thread to develop their renewable energy platform - helping to establish bodies such as the science based target initative and RE100. So understanding renewable energy production and working with engineers was a huge part of that job. I also worked with The World Bank and Shell (!) on developing climate pricing scenarios. I now work with major fashion companies on their climate change roadmaps and implementations, including big ones where the realtity of climate change has really pissed them off like H&M, Burberry, Gucci and Nike. So I've worked across many part of the industry and spoken to so many people. To answer your questions in once place. On the climate conferences all agreeing with each other...well... you couldn't be more wrong. The whole things are one big debate. You go into any room and there is a fucking debate going on. Over so many reasons. I've answered many of your questions. So answer my two to see whether this is even worth continuing or whether you will just ignore everything and believe that you are right and that thousands of climate scientists, governments, policy makers, major companies and the oil and gas industry are all wrong. 1. What evidence do you require to understand the current climate change situation. You want a debate, but that can only be if there is a point where you can accept evidence 2. If you were right, why aren't the oil and gas industry screaming about it?

There absolutely are debate in climate change. Loads in fact. Come to a climate conference- it is full of the shit. What are our best emissions reduction pathways? Should offsets be used? What role do we allow market factors and what role do we use legislation? Are companies or their suppliers responsible for their emissions? How do we decouple economic growth from emissions? I can keep going with the various debates that are happening What we don't have anymore is the debate you want. Which is, is it happening? And the reason is - because there is tonnes of evidence it is- and no evidence to disprove it. I asked you twice now and you keep ignoring it. But if there was evidence that it wasn't happening, or not happening to the extent that you think- why aren't the oil and gas industry all over it? What you are wanting is like two gasmen coming to fix my boiler. I could go up to them and try and start a debate that it isn't broken. They tell me it is. They then try to talk to each other about the best way of fixing my boiler. I keep peppering them away telling them it isn't broken, they assure me it is, and demonstrate it isn't working. I ignore them and keep asking question about whether it is working so eventually they turn around and ignore me cos I ain't listening to them and it is wasting their time and the boiler needs fixing. I can argue all I like it isn't broken. Fact is- it is.

Lol this is the equivalent of you going up to Ralph and saying this is a football, those are goalposts. Yes I know how they are produced. Without wanting to rude, I daresay working in the industry for over a decade possibly gives me more insight into renewables than watching a 90 minute show by Michael Moore. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's absolutely fair and I totally agree. I and many others do not want the costs past on to lower income families. It is completely unfair. If you look at at an organisation like Fuel Poverty Action who are around at every climate event - they are pushing for a green future whilst protecting those in fuel poverty. To make this unaffordable to households is a political choice, not one that is inherent with a green future. There are lots of ways to prevent that from happening such as green levies on major profitable companies to subsidise lower income households, or legisilation that freezes the rate of price increases. It definitely isn't one or the other.

As educated guess is Saints taking a punt on an 18 year old like Livramento. Decades of research is science. There is a mile of difference. I also don't get your other point. No one is saying that you are not allowed to fly ever again? If they are saying it, then sure it is utter hypocrisy. But we do need to look at how we consume, what resources we use, and reduce it. Thing is, for years people have accused environmentalists of 'taking us back to the caves'. Now when we are saying you are allowed nice things they are like 'you hypocrites'. Frequent flyers should absolutely be banned. Alok Sharma should have been sacked on the spot. But a flight every couple of years is fine. It's not a case of 'you better be perfect otherwise I am doing fuck all'. We don't need to be perfect. But we do need changes

Hmm I disagree about the fronts for government. I work with a number of very large companies such as H&M on climate change strategies and they are doing their own thing really. If anything trying to lobby governments for more support rather than the other way around. Truth is, so many companies are simply too big and transnational to be bound to any singular government. The short term approach though is sadly true and you are bang on. It is classic tragedy of the commons. Why should I do something if no other country is? And then we all get fucked because of that approach. Reality is whether we do something now, or just focus on adaptation, it is gonna come at a price. We are already seeing cotton prices rise for example. Part of that is driven by demand, and part of it is changing weather in countries such as India and Pakistan which is impacting output. This is only getting worse. So we can't escape costs. But there are also benefits to use green tech that just don't get talked about enough. For example it was long suggested that solar and wind were super expensive and we shouldn't touch them. Well the levelised cost of energy (which is generally one of the fairest way of determining cheapest energy per kwh), shows that wind and solar have massively reduced in price. This is from a UK report last year for new energy added With further learning and scale, renewables are gonna keep dropping in price. So that is undoubtedly better for us. Where the UK has messed up in my opinion is that it should/could still take a leadership position. It should have been a leader in innovation and production in wind energy and sell it around the world. Sure, it costs more in short term, but it is an investment that would pay off. If you look at something like circularity, that is another one that requires a fair amount of up front investment. But would pay off long run. Products use raw materials that go to many countries before it gets to us. It would make more sense to develop the systems to recycle and reuse materials with only small amount of raw material to top up, especially as raw resources are likely to go up in price. So I personally don't see green tech as something that cripples us, but can be something that can make things cheaper and better.

Yep the study's main conclusion was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unparalled compared to the previous 1,000 years. A study that has long been backed up with further studies studies such as this https://www.sciencemag.org/CONTENT/339/6124/1198.abstract And no research proving that claims are wrong.

I haven't looked at troposphere for a number of years so not my area of expertise. However the claim there is no warming on the troposphere is clearly rubbish. It took me five minutes to find a number of peer reviewed research demonstrating that there has been warming such as this https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/19/jcliD190998.xml, or this https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf, or this https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/4/jcli-d-16-0457.1.xml I'm surprised given your research that you didn't manage to find them? But. I'm gonna humour you for a moment. I'm gonna pretend for a second that you are right. That there has been substantial warming on the surface, but no warming in the troposphere and that no model predicted it. Well. What then? It doesn't change anything. It doesn't change that the earth surface has warmed about a degree in a century. It doesn't change that we are observing the rapid retreat of the ice caps. It doesn't change we are observing mass coral bleaching events. It doesn't change the observed increasing acidication of the oceans. Targeting one small amount of research when there are literally thousands of studies of supporting evidence doesn't change anything. As an example, take a look at this and what do you see? Of course. It's a fucking 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 fucking 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. But my question to you is. If your claims are correct. And that climate change can be proven to overstated. Why isn't the multi trillion dollar Oil and Gas industry running with it? Why aren't they walking up to the next COP with their dicks out saying we have demonstrated proof that your claims are absolutely incorrect?

So what are you trying to argue here. 1. Climate change is not happening 2. Climate is happening but humans are not the cause 3. Climate change is happening, human are a driving cause, but the impacts are not bad? There are some things though you simply can't argue. - You can not argue that the Earth has not warmed about 1 degree since 1900. That is just fact. - You can not argue that the climate models have not predicted the correlation between concentration of GHGs and temperature rise. Because they have done so with incredible accuracy, as shown that even an early 1988 model managed to get today's temperature rise with unerring accuracy.

Just to quickly jump on the China debate - they are far too complex to put down as either good guys or bad guys. There isn't a country that is investing more in effective green technology and have made some real and genuine progress. Without some of the tech advancements from their investment we would be nowhere. Yet they are also responsible for some of the biggest environmental disasters on the planet - just look at the Mekong. Totally planned and totally irresponsible and damaging. But the issue is really complex when you get into per capita emissions or overall country emissions. Emissions from industry are generally the hardest to reduce. Especially those that don't really have effective tech solutions like steel or cement. In the UK we don't really produce anything anymore on any kind of scale. So our pathway to lowering emissions is actually pretty easy and we can set targets that look better (on paper). We have a high consumptive society (overall rather than anyone specifically) but our emissions are generally generated overseas. The big debate going is are we responsible for our emissions generated overseas? If countries like China, Bangladesh, India and Vietnam are making all our shit, are they solely responsible for reducing them, is it up to us, or is it a joint responsibility? That's really where the debate should be. EDIT: Forgot to refresh page and hadn't realised the debate had already moved there

Okay I watched most of it. I've been scribbling down notes, but to be honest it would take me several hours to rebut every single thing. There was no point continuing past about half way as the entire argument he was providing had collapsed. For those that fortunately haven't watched it- the premise of the argument seems to be challenging a 1988 Hansen study and model prediction of temperature rise over time. Now, challenging a single study about 38 years ago and using it as demonstrable evidence against current science and practice is rather ridiculous given the thousands of studies out there over the last couple of decades. You have far more unpicking to do to even make the slightest dent. Even then, the 'analysis' is completely wrong. The Hansen study modeled three different emissions scenarios which I have screenshot here Most importantly, in Scenario A, it states that in this scenario hydroflurocarbons will continue to increase. In the real world though, and thanks to the Montreal Protocol and actual action, we have seen HFCs massively reduce. This is significant as they have a global warming potential that is thousands of times worse than CO2. When modelling is done, there are usually a few different scenarios but usually they are 1. What will happen to temperatures if GHG emissions increase aka worse scenario 2. What will happen if business as usual 3. What will happen if they stabilise and 4. What will happen if we reduce massively aka best case. What the denialists often do is cherry pick the first one and say 'Ha, look, it was wrong'. Even though it was always designed as a worse case scenario. Even in the report you can see that Scenario B was always more likely. The only reason Scenario A didn't happen was because we have eliminated a good chunk of hydroflurocarbons and some efforts to reduce other greenhouse gas emissions, albeit nowhere near enough The even more amusing thing is that this video is trying to show that the models were wrong. But if anything it is a demonstration of how accurate the models can be. What actually happened in the real world was a combination of scenarios A and B, where GHGs went up, but the highly forceful HFCs largely removed. Taking into this adjustment in the Hansen model, you would expect to see a global temperature rise of about .6 degrees from then. Something that has been measured to be largely spot on

Out of interest why do you think that? Why would literally thousands of climate scientists and researchers working independently of one another suddenly lie about something like that? Why haven't the oil and gas companies, or countries with a reliance on fossil fuel production, managed to come to the same conclusion as you?

I've never noticed this thread before, I tend not to go to the lounge. But feel I'm probably quite qualified here given I've worked in the climate change field for over a decade. I don't have time to watch that today or tomorrow, but possibly can on Monday. What I would ask you though is - if there was genuinely a piece of robust research that demonstrated your claims, why aren't the oil and gas industry screaming about it? The value of their companies would double instantly.

I'm a bit confused? Are you suggesting we shouldn't spend money on a player that improves our first choice team, cos if everyone does that then no one finishes higher? I just think spending the money on a first choice keeper is much better than spending money on what looks like a third or even fourth choice centre back. Buying expensive squad players that don't improve the first team is the surest way to have an over expensive bloated squad.

Out of interest, why do you think we will be stronger at CB this season? We have lost out best CB (even if he did have his flaws) and replaced him with a player that struggled in a poor Torino side. Maybe he will end up as an upgrade of Vestegaard, but his past experience makes him look more like a Carillo than a VVD. At LB, it remains to be seen whether we have improved on Bertrand. Bertrand wasn't as bad as some make out, but had definitely gone down from his very high standards. Right back is looking good, but then right back wasn't much of an issue as KWP was one of our players of the season. It's good that we have more depth now, but I think our starting defence is worse, or at least the same as last season which is worrying as that is the area where we are poorest.

I get what people are saying about wages, but if it is gonna cost us points, then we simply have to find a way of working it. I can't think of many teams that have a worse keeper situation than us. Defence was our weakest point last season and our starting defence is probably worse than last season. We spent 7m on a 3rd/4th choice cb, or we could have spent the money to make the first team better. I can tell you now which will have a better impact on our season. A good goalkeeper could lift us a couple of positions higher. That would more than cover the costs of the salaries. Plus if Forster was third choice, we could probably shift him on loan with wages partially covered.