Sheaf Saint

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1196837709094039558?s=20 The idea that Brexit is a negotiation between the EU and the UK is "the largest unicorn ever invented in history", according to the former director of the WTO. Who'd have thought it, eh?

Cool, I'll take your word for it. Next time I come down to visit friends I'll have a look what's on. Saw Fat White Family a while back and they were great. As were their other incarnation the Moonlandingz.

Anyone seen the Arron Banks leaks on Twitter? There's some dynamite stuff come out of it so far. https://twitter.com/JoeZBlair/status/1196790921700036608 Worried much Andy?

Well it certainly was when I left in 2004. I liked the little places like the Joiners and the Brook, although the Guildhall was the only venue big enough to attract the larger acts, but it's a crap venue with terrible sound. If you say it has improved in that time then fair enough. I've heard the Engine Rooms is supposed to be alright. But as a city it's still nowhere near the top of the list when bands are deciding where to tour. Where I am now, not only do we get loads of good gigs in Sheffield but I'm in easy reach of Manchester, Nottingham and Leeds as well, so if there's a band you really want to see doing a UK tour, it's almost guaranteed they will be playing in at least one of those cities. But in Southampton you generally have to go to London or maybe Brighton.

This is one of the reasons I jumped at the chance to move to Sheffield for work in 2004. The live music and clubbing scene in Southampton was/is terrible. I've got to see some class acts in recent years - of the kind who would never bother to include such a musical backwater as Southampton in their tour dates. I'm coming over to Manchester on Friday to see the Chemical brothers at the MEN. should be reet good

https://www.businessinsider.com/government-has-no-plans-for-economic-assessment-of-brexit-deal-2019-11?r=US&IR=T

I think that all depends on whether or not the new man brings in a decent new coaching team with him. If so then it could make a big difference to our chances of staying up. A lot of our problems this season seem to stem from basic errors which could be vastly improved by better coaching IMO. Things like defending corners and FKs, taking decent throw-ins etc...

Did he play for Saints though? I took from Tommi's post that the person in question was not an ex-Saints player, not a non-player completely. I imagine there are very few people working in the technical side of professional football who never played the game themselves.

I usually agree with a lot of what you post, but I can't on this occasion. I wasn't making a point about it. I was simply offering a possible answer to your question about why people on the left might not be as good as people on the right at name calling. I fail to see how that can be described as mud slinging.

So refusing to engage in name-calling because you consider it to be too childish is 'just like name-calling'? Really?

Perhaps it's because they try to avoid lowering themselves to the childish level of their opposition.

OK so if you weren't referring to the laws of thermodynamics then perhaps you could tell us which one of Einstein's theories you think negates the possibility of the existence of the greenhouse effect? Look I have tried to be as respectful as possible and point out to you the serious flaws in all of the arguments you have so far put forward, but you're obviously just sticking your head in the sand and there is clearly nothing I can do to convince you, so I'm just going to be blunt... If you don't even understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis then you are clearly out of your depth. If the Connollys' contention about thermal equilibrium contradicting the greenhouse effect has any validity then why was it necessary for them to self-publish it? Why did they not submit it to a credible science journal? The answer is quite simple - because it would never get past the rigorous peer review process in any reputable publication, due to the massive inherent flaws in their reasoning. And like aintforever says, if there was any validity to their claims then why haven't they won any awards for this groundbreaking work and why has nobody else done any further research to expand on it in the intervening years, given the huge implications of them being correct? Also, why do they associate themselves with proven corrupt organisations to get their point across? And no, this isn't about my scientist vs your scientist, it's about good science vs bad science. Clearly you don't have even the slightest clue how to tell the difference between them, otherwise you would have recognised the very loud alarm bells ringing about the Connollys' work. When you study science at degree level, as I have, one of the most important lessons you learn is the evaluation of sources. There are key pointers you can use to help you identify whether a study is credible or if it is dubious. Things like presentation, objectivity, methodology. When you look at the loaded language the Connollys use on their website, it's immediately obvious there is no objectivity in play here. Just the name of the site - Global Warming Solved - is enough to tell you that these guys are not interested in good objective science. It's no wonder nobody else pays them any attention except the fossil fuel lobby they do their presentations for. And when you claim that I'm only dismissing them as nutjobs because their views don't suit my narrative - you could not be more wrong and this is a clear indication of projection on your part. The reason I asked you to show us some credible sources to support your argument is because I am always genuinely interested to see if anyone can come up with anything that can disprove the theory of AGW. I would love for it to be untrue and that everything was fine, really I would, but all the evidence of my studies and independent research tells me that's not the case. You, on the other hand, clearly have this internal narrative that global warming is this massive lefty conspiracy, and you are so convinced that this is the case that you are prepared to wilfully dismiss an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary and put all your faith in the work of some discredited individuals because that fits with your pre-existing view. You show all the signs of a classic conspiracy theorist in that you want to believe you are somehow special - like the boy in the story of the emperor's new clothes - because you can see what none of the other brainwashed sheeple can see. And if it's all the same with you, I would rather not wait another ten years to see if you are right. Even if there was the slightest bit of validity in what you are saying, there is this thing in science called the precautionary principle, but I don't expect you to be familiar with this concept either. Given some of the terrifying warning signs of what is to come we have seen in the last few years (like massive, unprecedented heatwaves and wildfires in the Arctic this year), I would much rather trust my own understanding of the science thanks.

Being Scottish also doesn't work in his favour

I think what's slightly more important than the mis-spelling of his name is the fact that he didn't even write the laws of thermodynamics! And even more important than that is the fact that the atmosphere is not actually in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2553-x And even more important than that is the fact that, even if it was, the greenhouse effect doesn't violate the second law anyway. Some other cranks tried arguing otherwise a few years ago and were savagely put in their place by some scientists who actually know what they are talking about... https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X The Connollys didn't get the same treatment, because it's already been done and they are just too insignificant in the eyes of the climate science community to even bother publishing a paper rebutting their wild claims. The closest I can find is this... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/05/unforced-variations-may-2019/comment-page-4/ "Jim Ryan @155, You ask if Soon et al (2015) ‘Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century’ has been rebutted [this is the paper co-authored by the Connollys]. I don’t see a rebuttal of Soon’s ‘work’ since a bit earlier (eg here) and there is today quite a collection of denialist ‘work’ referencing Soon et al (2015). Of course Soon et al (2015) is a rather long ‘work’ running to 49 pages, “running” being the operative word. It doesn’t stop once to properly compare its individual assertions with the actual science it is trying to overturn. Perhaps a summary would be in order for folk here to appreciate the labours of these denialist running-dogs. (1) Solar variability over recent centuries is discussed at length (pp3-19). The coverage does end with a “Summary of the Current Debates” but this begins badly [saying “Solar input is probably one of the most important drivers of Earth’s climate.”] and anything usefully set out is entirely ignored within the remainder of the ‘work’ which is doing no more than following Scarfetta & Willson (2014). (2) A novel ‘composite’ NH land temperature record 1880-to-date is constructed using selective “rural” data from China, USA, Ireland & (less selectively) the Arctic, concluding that it is significantly different from other NH land temperature records (pp19-32). (3) While their ‘composite’ NH land temperature record is significantly different from all others, they fail to investigate why this may be so (effectively asserting that it is due to Urban Heat Islands) and instead compare their ‘composite’ directly with NH SST records, glacier-length records and Wilson et al (2007) ‘A matter of divergence: Tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree ring data’, prividing themselves with a conformatory tick in all cases (pp32-35). (4) A quick ‘attribution’ analysis shows their ‘composite’ NH land temperature record is “a remarkably close fit” with their chosen solar variability reconstruction leading to a conclusion “that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution” which is entirely contrary to the findings of IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:from Global to Regional” but which is dismissed as being purely a “claim” (pp37-43)." Surprise surprise, Willie Soon is also a favourite of the Heartland Institute who, as I have previously mentioned, is know to have been less than forthcoming about his funding from the fossil fuel industry, and only recently admitted to it as part of a submission to a court in relation to a claim against some fossil fuel companies for costs arising from climate change by San Francisco and Oakland. One of the other people to also submit information was our old friend Will Happer from my previous post. It's all one big global network of deceit and propaganda. Do yourself a big favour Scally and don't be one of their useful idiots.

Very interesting info - cheers for sharing. Any chance you can give us a name?

This is all well and good, but it doesn't explain the absurd decision to play Armstrong at RWB. That's the one I still can't get my head around. I get that Valery had a 'mare against Leicester, but surely it's still better to play an actual fullback in that position than an attacking midfielder who has never (to my knowledge) played there before in his professional career? edit: Or if he insists on playing somebody out of position, then he could at least have played one FB in their natural positions. We had both Cedric and Valery available, but he stuck one of them on the left and left the other on the bench, so we ended up with two WBs playing out of position. As others have already pointed out - FB/WB is a highly specialised position, so to experiment with players not used to that specialty in a crucial PL match against the team just above us in the table, is utterly absurd.

And yet your total fixation with this Mann court case kind of proves my point. You keep banging on about it as if it represents some kind of slam dunk proof that he is a fraud and that man-made climate change does not exist, but it does nothing of the sort and is a total red herring. Now, as I have already said, it does certainly appear odd that Mann would allow the court action to just languish in the way that he did. I can’t offer any genuine reasons for that myself (maybe ask him – he’s very active on Twitter and seems willing to engage with most people who want to debate him sensibly). But to draw the conclusion from this that he refused a court order to turn over his data and must therefore be guilty of fraud is one of the most spectacularly flawed leaps of logic you could ever make. The transcript of the court dismissal states that literally nothing happened to move the matter forward, and made no mention whatsoever of any order to submit data or refusal to comply with such an order. If that was the actual reason for the delay, don’t you think the judge would have mentioned this very important detail when dismissing the case? Anyway it’s completely irrelevant, because - for the last time – Mann’s data and methodology are available in the public domain and have been for a very long time. It’s not this big secret that he refuses to share with anyone. It’s out there for all to see if you can be bothered. It’s now been over 20 years since Mann et. al. first published their paper, and in the intervening years it has been scrutinised, dissected, tested, reconstructed, reproduced – whatever – dozens of times, and not one of those studies has ever been able to identify any fatal flaws in its conclusions or evidence of deliberate manipulation of the data. Not one. If you still doubt that, have a read for yourself… https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225961901_Robustness_of_the_Mann_Bradley_Hughes_reconstruction_of_Northern_Hemisphere_surface_temperatures_Examination_of_criticisms_based_on_the_nature_and_processing_of_proxy_climate_evidence “Our results show that the MBH climate reconstruction method applied to the original proxy data is not only reproducible, but also proves robust against important simplifications and modifications. The results of this study demonstrate that the primary climatological claim described in [Mclntyre and McKitrick 2005] – that the method used by MBH to form PC summaries of climate proxies from data-rich regions results in calibrations that inappropriately weight proxies with a single-bladed hockey stick-like shape in the 20th century – cannot be upheld, and leaves unchanged the overall MBH result of uniquely high Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th century (relative to the entire 15th–20th century period).” Or how about this, the further paper that Mann co-authored in 2008 which expands on the previous study due to the wealth of further information available following an extra decade of research... https://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252 This time they reconstructed the surface temperatures for the past 1,300 years, both with and without the original tree ring data used in 1998, and guess what? The results were pretty much identical and fully supported the original findings – the warming in the 20th century is anomalous in the recent historic record. Here is a list somebody compiled of all the studies they could find which support Mann’s findings… http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html Perhaps you would like to review them all for us and provide a succinct summary of why you are so certain that they are all wrong but the Connollys are right? This ground has been covered over and over again in recent years, to the point that, frankly, I find it astonishing that there are people out there who are still flogging the dead horse of the “Mann’s a fraud” narrative. It is total bunkum. The only people still pushing this narrative are those with a serious financial interest in maintaining the status quo, and their useful idiots who swallow it blindly and regurgitate it as fact. If you’re still not convinced about that then have a read of this… https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html It’s an email chain which shows a sting by a member of Greenpeace purporting to be a representative of a middle eastern oil company, who contacted William Happer of the GWPF to enquire about getting them to author a paper which would portray CO2 as purely beneficial to the planet. Not only does Happer agree to this in principle, he also advises how he can arrange for the paper to ‘bypass’ any kind of rigorous peer review process, and how reimbursement can be made without it showing on any official accounts as payment for that particular work. They are utterly corrupt and devoid of any credibility whatsoever. Edit: Oh and by the way, have a guess who was the academic chairman of the GWPF at the time of this scandal and resigned very shortly afterwards? https://www.desmog.co.uk/2016/01/06/climate-denying-gwpf-academic-chairman-ross-mckitrick-resigns None other than one of the authors of the 2005 critique of Mann et. al.'s paper, which was thoroughly evaluated in a peer-reviewed study and found to be without merit - see link above. Are you seeing the connections now? The vast majority of the people pushing the denial narrative are all part of a large, well-funded, well-oiled machine, which goes to great lengths to appear credible, but it is anything but.

Isn't that exactly what's happened with every manager since Koeman though? The common denominator being the players themselves. It seems to me that whoever we appoint as manager, some of them will never be happy. Those aren't the kind of people I want in our squad TBH.

Apologies, I've just re-read my post and can see how it could have been misinterpreted. What I meant by "not in Ralph's plans" was that when he brought Rohl in with him last year, he certainly would not have been expecting to part company with him again before the start of the next season.

If the reports from Manji about the big meeting last week are correct, and we can expect to see a major re-shuffling of the technical department within the next week or so, then perhaps we should all wait to see the outcome of that before making any assumptions on whether Ralph should stay or go. It obviously wasn't in Ralph's plans for Rohl to leave in the summer, and we are still in the dark about the real reasons for his departure. Ralph has not been supported with the people he wants/needs, and has had a coaching team made up of "jobs for the boys" ex-players forced upon him, which is about as far from an ideal situation as you can get. Therefore, I am reluctant to place all the blame for our current situation on his shoulders.

Indeed. This smacks of another J-Rod situation. It's now been over a year since he did his ACL while on loan at Boro. Since then there has been nothing but silence from the club about his recovery and/or expected return date. He's not even listed at all on the Physio Room website.

You can if there is a very simple explanation for that... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/langswitch_lang/in/

OK let’s break this down bit by bit… The theory behind climate change since the world has been here is about the sun's activity Of course, the sun is the primary source of all heat energy on Earth and is obviously a huge influencing factor in our climate.. Numerous satellites have been recording solar activity since the late 70s, and due to the inherent uncertainty resulting from how you combine the data from these satellites, they show either a very slight cooling trend or a very slight warming trend. But either way, this still does not account for the increased rate of warming seen during the 20th century. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/has-the-sun-been-more-active-in-recent-decades-and-could-it-be-responsible-for-some-global-warming/ The earth orbit around the sun and the axis the earth rotates in changing If you are going to refer to the Milankovitch cycles then really you ought to make sure to mention all three of them and give them their proper name, otherwise it kind of looks like you don’t really know what you are talking about. These are well known natural cycles which affect the Earth’s climate over tens of thousands of years, and are assumed to be the primary cause of glacial periods. They are well understood and accounted for in all climate modelling. They do not, however, come anywhere close to explaining the current rate of warming, which is around ten times greater than that which would be expected due to any natural forcings and/or inferred from ice core records. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earths-orbit-cannot-explain-modern-climate-change/ Our climate changes and will do it again despite anything we do. You won’t find a single climate scientist who will disagree with the first part of this sentence. But the last bit is completely inaccurate I’m afraid. If you doubt that CO2 can have any effect on the Earth’s climate, then I suggest you read about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period in Earth’s history when runaway warming of between 5-8 degrees followed a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere and lasted for around 200,000 years. The actual cause of this release of CO2 is still largely unknown, but what is known is that it happened at a far lower rate than at which we are dumping it into the atmosphere currently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum The biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour, this has a far greater effect than C02 ever will. This is just plain wrong, I’m afraid. It’s true that water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas and is abundant in our atmosphere. But it only has a very short residence time in the atmosphere before precipitating out, and crucially, it does not control the Earth’s surface temperature. The build-up of water vapour in the atmosphere is a feedback effect resulting from increasing temperatures (basic physics – warmer air can hold more water). Water vapour cannot explain the observed warming since the mid 20th century, and it most certainly does not have a greater warming effect than CO2. This is GCSE level stuff, and should never, ever be used as an argument against AGW. Do some research on the work Ronon and Michael Connolly have done, if what they are saying is correct then C02 cannot have any effect on climate change. Ah, the Connollys. The last part of your sentence is utter nonsense. Their whole contention is that the sun influences global temperatures, therefore it’s not possible for CO2 to (effectively denying that the greenhouse effect even exists!). Even a simpleton can see the faulty logic in that conclusion. These guys were invited speakers at the Heartland Institute’s annual conference in 2015, and recently co-authored (with Willie Soon – a man who is proven to have lied about his fossil-fuel funding) an absolutely laughable hatchet job on Greenpeace which was published by Heartland https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/i-rejoice-that-it-is-warm-ars-attends-a-climate-contrarian-conference/ This is the same ‘think tank’ that was hired by the tobacco industry in the 90s to spread disinformation and convince the world that the research showing the dangers of smoking was just alarmist nonsense. No reputable climate scientist would, in their right mind, have anything to do with them whatsoever. They are just like the GWPF – set up by wealthy backers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and using pseudo-science to advance their agenda. If you want to be taken even remotely seriously in climate change debates, then you need to avoid anybody linked with Heartland like the plague. You started this discussion by saying that you like to do your own research on the subject. I can’t fault that. I would strongly recommend anybody seek out alternative viewpoints and test their validity – that’s just basic good science. But from what I have seen so far from your posts, you are looking in all the wrong places. The sites you have linked to so far have been those of either highly partisan conservative commentators or neoliberal lobby groups. You won’t find a single ounce of objectivity or scientific rigor on these sites, and by even citing them as ‘evidence’ to support your position, you are leaving yourself open to ridicule. I don’t mean to be rude to you Scally, but you do not come across as somebody who is open-minded and likes to do his own independent research. Your posting style and language gives the impression that you are, in fact, the opposite. You have shown a clear indication of confirmation bias (a logical fallacy to which we are all susceptible to some degree or another) as you appear to have already made your mind up that you believe AGW is a hoax, and are willing to seek out any sources, however unreliable they might be, to support that position, while blatantly disregarding all others which contradict it. This is the very epitome of bad science. So to re-phrase my question from a previous post – If you have some *credible* sources which contradict the consensus on AGW then please share them with us, because so far you have not.

Yes, at least he did last season. Remember he even got JWP into a run of form that got him an England call up. Redmond too - didn't win POTS for his early season form did he. Even Hojbjerg looked good for a bit after Ralph had made his mark on the team. I am at a loss though to understand why those players have regressed so badly this season. Is it Ralph? Is it the coaches/fitness? Is there something deeper going on behind the scenes that is having a negative influence in the dressing room? Given everything that has transpired at the club in recent times, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

I think the cup final was probably the last time I genuinely enjoyed watching Saints, despite the result. Best part of three years ago