Jump to content

Sheaf Saint

Subscribed Users
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  1. Would prefer the white with the red sash for the home kit. Just do not see the point of an away kit that has essentially the same colours but in reverse. We still won't be able to wear it away at any other team that plays in red. Utterly pointless.
  2. In defence of Obafemi, he does seem to have an eye for a good defence-splitting pass, as we've seen from some of his assists so far. Unfortunately, he plays with his head down too often and doesn't always see it. I thought Adams showed more attacking threat in his short cameo at the end of the Watford game than Obafemi has in any of the recent games, so I would go with him for the rest of the season. He's bound to break his duck sooner or later, but even if he doesn't, he brings more to the team in other ways than Obafemi does at this stage of his career.
  3. Classy, as always. Will never be remembered as a truly 'great' player, but a fantastic club servant and a true gentleman who always gave his very best.
  4. KWP is so much better defensively than Valery.
  5. It will be interesting to see how much difference, if any, having no fans in the stadium makes to our home form.
  6. Agreed. I don't think it is a coincidence that our down turn in form occurred when we were forced to move him to RB, and neither is it a coincidence that we (eventually) put in a dominant performance last night with him back in the middle.
  7. What exactly is it you think this proves?
  8. You're right. It is difficult. It's really difficult to NOT play the man when you're talking about such a notoriously dishonest pseudo-scientist as Tony Heller (or Steven Goddard, or whatever the hell his name actually is). He apparently has a degree in geology and has never published any peer reviewed work. Ergo, he's NOT a scientist, and he has been proven to be wrong on so many occasions, he's had more climbdowns than Fireman Sam. He has no credibility in climatology whatsoever. But anyway, let's play the ball here as you requested... So his main contention in this video is that climate scientists cherry pick datasets to make the warming appear worse than it actually is. And how does he go about 'proving' this? By cherry-picking his own data of course... The first graph he directs his ire towards is the one showing US heatwave intensity since 1960, and uses a set of graphs which show that it was higher in the years before this and thus the warming observed since then is misleading. However, these graphs only depict heatwaves on the US mainland (2% of the Earth's surface), and he deliberately doesn't mention the fact that the massive spike around the mid-30s, which then results in a downward trend-line through to 1960, was due to the infamous great Dust Bowl event. It's disingenuous to say the least, and it does not in any way contradict the observed rise in average global temperatures. Then he moves on to US wildfires, and complains that the graph only shows data from 1983, and to counter this he uses a graph depicting a completely different dataset - total acreage burned (i.e. - not just wildfires but all controlled fires as well). This is just straight out fraud, and I'm sorry to say you would have to be a total idiot not to spot this 'error'. Then he goes on about how NOAA hid the satellite data relating to Arctic sea ice extent from before 1979, he says deliberately to avoid showing an upward trend prior to that point. He contends that they had satellite data all the way back to the early 50s, but what he fails to mention is that earlier data was just photographs from which sea ice extent had to be estimated visually. From 1979 onwards, satellite data was gathered using passive microwave data, which made the measurements far more reliable. Lo and behold, the records since this change show a very clear downward trend. All of his arguments could, on the face of it, appear very convincing... if you've already made up your mind that you believe his side of the argument and are willing to ignore a huge wealth of credible evidence to the contrary. Keep 'em coming Scally.
  9. Indeed. It's already been detected... https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146362/airborne-nitrogen-dioxide-plummets-over-china
  10. So let me just make sure I'm understanding you correctly... You believe that just because what some climatologists were saying in the 1970s turned out to be wrong, they must therefore also be wrong now? Is that your contention? The full impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures was not well understood up until that time. But, interestingly, the year of the extreme winter that your video was made in response to (1977) was the same year that Exxon became aware of it, and then proceeded to spend the next few decades spending $millions to cover it up: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ This was the beginning of the denialist movement that continues to this day, to which every single contributor you have so far linked to can be connected (usually financially) in some way. Then came the beginning of the research being carried out by people outside of the fossil fuel industry, which confirms everything they knew and predicted over 40 years ago. Since then, our understanding of the Earth's climate and energy balance etc... has continued to improve exponentially. The observed warming in the late 20th/early 21st century simply cannot be explained by natural radiative forcings. It is only when you input the effect of the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 into the models that they correlate with the observational data. You may be 55 and 10 years my senior, but I have a BSc hons degree in environmental science, so believe me when I say I know a damn sight more about this subject than you do (or think you do). It hardly seems worthwhile me presenting any evidence, because you will probably only ignore it like you have with everything else I have shared with you so far. But here goes... The current rate of warming negates the possibility of an ice age in the near future. Since that video was made, glaciers have shrunk, not expanded; Arctic sea ice has receded year on year, huge chunks of the Antarctic ice shelf have been lost. Only last year, there were unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic. At some point we will have to live without fossil fuels. By their very definition, they are not sustainable. So if we are going to have to come up with other ways of powering our energy-intensive economic activities, do you not think it would make perfect sense to start researching and introducing them as early as possible, rather than wait until the fossil fuels run out and we haven't got a means of replacing them? Wind farms, like solar farms, are obviously not a large-scale solution. Their power per square metre stats are not good, and they are not reliable enough to form a large part of the energy mix. They do have their place though, through micro-generation at a local level. Of course, the big hope is that nuclear fusion will finally be perfected in the near future, and will provide all the clean energy we will ever need. There has long been a running joke that this technology is always 30 years away, but there have been large strides taken in recent years towards making it viable. Until it is, we have to look at other ways. People don't like nuclear fission energy, mostly based on fear due to what happened in Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima. But modern plants have all kinds of fail-safes bulit in which negate the possibility of either of those scenarios happening again. They are not carbon-neutral, of course, and the costs of construction and decommissioning are astronomical, but they generate far less CO2e per KWh than coal or gas powered plants. We could, of course, just commit to using less energy overall and improving public transport. But unfortunately that's not compatible with the short-sightedness of neoliberal economics, which my studies showed me unequivocally is the root cause of pretty much all of the world's environmental and ecological problems.
  11. Well no, because there is no valid research underpinning this film at all. And our understanding of climate science has improved drastically since it was made. The USA had a particularly cold and severe winter in 1977, and someone made a film about what might happen to society if we were to experience another ice age. It's just pure speculation. Interestingly, the only bit of real science discussed in the film, by the guy talking about the sea cores and how the information they provide corresponds to the Milankovitch cycles, blatantly contradicts your whole argument. Under these astronomical cycles, which affect the shape of the earth's orbit and rotation, we should be heading into another ice age, but we're quite obviously not. The GMST is still rising year on year and record temperatures continue to be broken.
  12. Yes, and it's just a repeat of all the same old nonsense you have previously shared which has been completely and utterly de-bunked time and time again. For the last f*cking time Scally, Michael Mann did not commit fraud, and the findings of his 1998 study have been repeatedly reproduced and supported, using the same raw data that has been available to the public for a very long time. The continued campaign against him is just out of desperation from those determined to protect the profitability of fossil fuels at any cost, and does not stand up to any actual facts.
  13. Well you really should care who he is, because being able to differentiate between credible sources and fraudulent ones is a crucial skill in science. Just because lots of people have shared that graph, you think that must make it valid? Do you actually have the slightest idea how moronic that logic is? What are your thoughts on the journal article I shared with you detailing an actual scientific study by actual climate scientists who categorically contradict what this crackpot bloke of yours says? Interesting. I clicked on the link for the first quote for Dr Robert Balling (surprise surprise, he's heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry too. It's almost like there'e a recurring theme with these people!). The article that the link takes you to is this... https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-11.pdf And, lo and behold, the individual quote has - once again - been taken completely out of context. The whole section reads like this... "A common perception is that the rate of sea level rise should have accelerated during the latter half of the 20th century. The tide gauge data for the 20th century show no significant acceleration (e.g., Douglas, 1992). We have obtained estimates based on AOGCMs for the terms directly related to anthropogenic climate change in the 20th century, i.e., thermal expansion (Section, ice sheets (Section, glaciers and ice caps (Section (Figure 11.10a). The estimated rate of sea level rise from anthropogenic climate change ranges from 0.3 to 0.8 mm/yr (Figure 11.10b). These terms do show an acceleration through the 20th century (Figure 11.10a,b). If the terrestrial storage terms have a negative sum (Section 11.2.5), they may offset some of the acceleration in recent decades. The total computed rise (Figure 11.10c) indicates an acceleration of only 0.2 mm/yr/century, with a range from −1.1 to +0.7 mm/yr/century, consistent with observational finding of no acceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century (Section The sum of terms not related to recent climate change is −1.1 to +0.9 mm/yr (i.e., excluding thermal expansion, glaciers and ice caps, and changes in the ice sheets due to 20th century climate change). This range is less than the observational lower bound of sea level rise. Hence it is very likely that these terms alone are an insufficient explanation, implying that 20th century climate change has made a contribution to 20th century sea level rise." And from the executive summary of the report... "It is very likely that 20th century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of sea water and widespread loss of land ice. " Seriously Scally, stop making such a fool of yourself by believing and repeating any old boll*cks you read online that just happens to fit with your own preconceptions.
  14. Made a pretty good job of Formula 1 as well, which is no small achievement given the level of the competition.
  15. And in response to your initial query if anyone can explain the levels of CO2 compared to temperature, start with this... https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691 "We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming." But yeah, let's just accept the word of a blockchain-selling Trump supporter instead.
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})