Sheaf Saint

Llorente should be off the pitch now.

That was a wake up call.

Just seen another replay and Llorente had both feet off the ground when he clattered Broja.

BBC are reporting that Broja was struggling after "landing heavily before scoring". Interesting take on it, to say the least.

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.