Sheaf Saint

It's the inconsistency that's so infuriating. If JWP's tackle was worth a red then that definitely was. Not even checked.

On repeat viewing, I agree.

HAHA! Brilliant timing! 😂

There's a huge pace difference between Broja and their CB on that side. Need to try and exploit that more.

Delighted? Amazed more like.

Well that's probably even more frustrating than the Wolves game so far. We are so much more dominant in this game than against Wolves but just cannot get past a not particularly good defence. Feel like I've said this so often in recent times but Leeds can't possibly be as bad as that again in the second half.

If we had played as badly as Leeds have so far, we'd easily be 3-0 down by now.

Really got them on the ropes now. If this keeps up there's surely no way their defence will hold out.

Blatant push on Djenepo there. How did the ref miss that?

Indeed. As far as an overall performance goes, it's looking very good. Tino and Ely linking up really well on the right, and Redmond looking in the mood for once. But the longer it goes on without the ball going in the net, the more I worry we'll throw it all away.

That was great from Redmond. He's having a decent game today. Just needs an end product.

That was never a foul FFS.

It's all Saints at the moment, but we can't take our chances. We know how this ends, don't we.

Oh wow that was close! Ely millimetres away.

What even was that from Redmond? Was it a shot or a cross? Awful decision making as usual, wastes a good attacking move.

Taters really rubbing it in with Leeds record against us.

So just to confirm - ad hominem attacks are a big no-no, but personal insults are perfectly acceptable. And pointing out that someone has cited a deeply flawed study and his own work to arrive at a conclusion is considered an ad hominem attack. Righto.

So he cites the IPCC because it is their work he is criticising, he cites the flawed McKitrick and Christy study, and aside from that he mostly cites his own work. Gotcha.

You do realise that number 2 in that list is the same study I have been referring to? The one that only cited it to point out how badly flawed it is! And whoever you got this particular copy and paste job from is celebrating that they have cited it as if that makes it more credible. 😂 As for the Pielke study, when he says the IPCC predictions show limited skill, he is using the McKitrick and Christy study as his basis for this claim. The same study that, I think we have quite comprehensively demonstrated, is worthless. What do you think that says about the credibility of people citing it? I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means. Anyone???

What are you even on about here? This makes no sense at all.

Cripes, you really are tying yourself up in knots this morning aren't you. It wasn't me who linked to that website, it was Badgerx16 I didn't say Christy was an economist. I have heard of him and I know he's not. Ross McKitirick, however, who I have also heard of before because of his notoriety in climate science denial, is an economist. Which is what I said. And the peer review information for the Po-Chedley et. al. paper is here... You whinge about ad hominem attacks yet you respond with a wanker emoji and call me a total fraud Stay classy.

GM thinks it is impressive. Says it all.

"Fled the thread". LOL. Forgive me for having better things to do with my weekend than argue with people I don't know on the internet. You do realise that just repeatedly sharing the same paper that has already been shown to be badly flawed isn't going to give you any more credibility, don't you? No, I expect you don't. Let's just look at this snippet from their conclusions... This statement is utterly false. As demonstrated in the study by Po-Chedley et. al. So lo and behold, when you use 482 historical simulations, instead of just 38, and you correctly adjust for the stratospheric cooling effect (as shown by the 2004 study I linked to previously), the picture changes dramatically. So ask yourself GM - what reason did McKitrick and Christy have to use such a small sample size and ignore the research which shows the influence of stratospheric cooling in the satellite data? Only two possibilities occur - they are either totally incompetent, or they were deliberately trying to create a false narrative. Either way, placing your faith in their work is erroneous. I mean, where do I even begin with this? If you had even the most basic understanding of science, you would know full well this isn't how it works. Claiming that a position must be false because nobody can offer 100% proof is the most absurd of logical fallacies that even a first year undergraduate student would know damn well to avoid. So no, you are correct that I cannot cite a study that proves it. Nor would I even pretend to. All I can say is that study after study after study has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that natural forcings simply do not account for the observed warming since pre-industrial times, and the fingerprints of man-made warming are evident to such a degree that the chance of the correlation between them and observed warming being coincidental is vanishingly small. I'll share this but I know you won't bother watching it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9GjguTOqs4

Not to take too much away from him, because he did have a good game, but we really do need to take The quality (or lack of) of the opposition into account before we get too carried away. JWP was playing a deep lying role against a team with 10 players camped in their own half at all times. Hardly a big test for him. I think he needs to introduce some variety into his penalty taking. Always the same spot, and he was lucky the rebound fell to him this time.

Ah, the old Rusedski paradox.