Sheaf Saint

How is that not worth a booking? Deliberate, cynical foul to stop him breaking. It's a yellow all day long!

Very positive start. Looks like the lads are buzzing to have the crowd back.

Are you really that naïve about the situation?

You do realise that when Colin Kapernick began the practice of kneeling before a football match it had absolutely fuck all to do with any prescribed political organisations (BLM or otherwise) and was just his own way of protesting about racial inequality? Just because BLM chose to adopt it, doesn't mean that everyone who does it is showing support for that particular group.

You say that, but he's usually blowing out of his arse by the 70 minute mark and frequently has to be subbed off as a result. Overall though, I agree. He has been a rare bright spot this season, with his willingness to run at defenders and try to make something happen, instead of just playing the crab football that many others are guilty of.

Well after weeks of throwing about the old "if we win our game in hand" cliché, it's satisfying to see that we actually did.

Indeed. Regardless of what we achieved in the first half of it, and ignoring all mitigating circumstances, any season where we equal our record defeat margin and set a new club record for consecutive defeats can only be described as a bad season.

Tell you what, if we can have Romeu back for the last few games of the season that would be a big bonus. Even half-fit, he's a better option in CM than Diallo.

Good that common sense has prevailed, but for love of God why did VAR not overturn it on the night? Absolutely ridiculous.

What happened to this then? Can't see anything on the OS or Twitter. Or has it been impacted by the planned social media blackout?

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record Scally, what is your evidence for this? Contemporary models are far more sophisticated than the early ones from the 70s, and include numerous different variables that the older ones could not account for. Yet those old ones have been proven to be mostly accurate. Models are fed with various different future CO2 emissions scenarios to predict the climatic responses to each one. So how can you possibly say they can't predict with any accuracy when we simply don't know what the future emissions (and other natural forcings) will be yet?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming Perhaps you missed this when I posted it a couple of days ago. Or maybe you just ignored it because it doesn't fit your narrative (more likely). Either way, I'll share it again.

You've literally just copied and pasted that from the Wall Street Journal article. A notoriously biased publication. I would like you to explain, in your own words, why you think a man with strong historical links to the fossil fuel industry and no previously published climate research to his name deserves more credence on the subject than people who have dedicated their entire professional careers to research in this field. I'll wait.

What data? Evidence please.

I literally said in my previous post that he is obviously an intelligent person. What is it you think this wiki profile tells you that proves he should be listened to? It doesn't list a single bit of actual climate research he has conducted, because he never has. What makes him more qualified than actual climate researchers to be an authority on the subject?

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that if someone is going to release a book essentially telling an entire branch of science that they are all wrong about something, that person needs to demonstrate a decent grasp of the basics if he wants to be taken seriously. Of course climate is constantly changing, because the Earth's climate is an extremely complex, fluid system and not one single climate scientist claims to fully understand it 100%. Koonin does raise an interesting discussion about exactly how much impact our activities will have on the climate in future and to what degree we should invest in mitigation measures, and there is no absolute right or wrong answer to that. But by failing to distinguish the difference between peak temperature records and long-term average trends, he's displaying a horrendous ignorance of the very basics of climate science. It would be like someone writing a supposedly comprehensive insight into the world of football but not even understanding the offside rule.

The fact that this Koonin guy is unable or unwilling to distinguish between individual peak temperature records and global mean surface temperature tells you all you need to know about him. Yet another of Scally's sources that can be safely ignored. Even if he does make some good points worthy of discussion, this kind of schoolboy 'error' destroys any credibility he may have.

I've not read the book that this article is plugging, so I'm not in a position to discuss everything that's in it. Stephen Koonin is obviously an intelligent man, but he also has a known recent history of making fallacious arguments regarding climate change. He also used to work as the chief scientist for BP, which just further demonstrates the strong links between climate change 'skeptics' and the fossil fuel industry. Why do you automatically assume that this man is more knowledgeable about climate than people who have spent their entire careers studying it? He acknowledges “it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it.” This statement contradicts the claims you have made in the past that human activity does not influence climate and that it is all just made up. He claims that CO2 levels are "at a low that has only been seen once before in the past 500 million years", but this claim is completely false. They are currently higher than at any time in the last 3.6 million years, according to the most recent research. Yes, it's true that CO2 concentration has been higher in the past, but humans didn't exist at that point, so it is impossible for us to know how those conditions would have impacted on human life.

Like the time he did a video interview on a BBC news program about abortion, and spat his dummy out and ended the interview after accusing Andrew Neil of being left wing.

Absolutely mental. I posted a link to a study showing that even the earliest climate models from the 70s have turned out to be eerily accurate, and yet you just won't accept it will you. And even if some people got something wrong 50 years ago, what does that prove? Our understanding of science is evolving and improving all the time. The people you were listening to in the 70s, who said we were due another ice age, are the ones who have been proven wrong. You're literally defeating your own argument.

I don't. I understand that they are an important part of the energy mix, but I have never claimed they are the answer to all our problems because they are quite obviously not. Why are you arguing against things I haven't said?

I already did, on a previous thread... https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/topic/57530-extinction-rebellion/?do=findComment&comment=2773938 You ignored it then, just as you will ignore it now.

My 'view' is based on the fact that I've got an honours degree in environmental science, and the politics of climate change denialism formed a large chunk of one of the modules I studied.

Neither of those people are qualified scientists, let alone climate scientists. You are literally just doubling down and proving my point that you have no idea how science works and are only interested in listening to voices saying what you want to hear. Who was? If you're referring to that documentary that you linked to once, presented by Leonard Nimoy, then see my point above. Actual climatologists weren't predicting a new ice age in the 70s. The models being used even back then, that predicted warming in response to increased CO2 concentrations, have actually turned out to be scarily accurate... https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming "The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph. Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations"

With all due respect Scally, given your previous posts about climate change, you quite obviously don't understand how science works. A climate change denier is somebody who deliberately sets out to spread false information about climate change, in order to protect the vested interests of the multinational corporations who stand to lose a lot of money and power if we go carbon-free. It's a well-funded, global network of pseudo-scientists and 'journalists' (like Shapiro) working together to muddy the waters and delay the required action to protect corporate profits. I've tried to explain this to you before on a previous thread, and presented plenty of evidence to prove it to you, but you're not the slightest bit interested in listening. You've read some baseless bullshit somewhere that fits with your world view, and made your mind up that you are right and everybody else is wrong. And yet, you dare to accuse other people of being deluded and unscientific. Your lack of awareness in this regard is truly staggering.