Sheaf Saint

No shots on or off target. At home, against a struggling team with a terrible away record. Truly awful. Not a single positive to glean from that.

Oh I don't know. Bet365 has us winning on possession with 51%

If it's any consolation to anyone, I've just looked on their forum and they are, to a man, utterly convinced they will pay for not scoring more and end up not winning.

I've defended him for years, but I utterly fail to see what contribution JWP ever makes in open play. He's just sooo weak and ineffective. We might as well stick a crash test dummy out there in a number 16 shirt.

Still no shots on goal, and no indication that we will even get close. Pathetic.

I would much rather go down thanks.

This is horrific.

They are all over us. Only a matter of time before they score again.

Fair enough. I was out the night of the Leicester game, and still haven't been able to bring myself to watch the 'highlights', so I can't really comment.

No shots on or off target so far. Says it all.

You really think Armstrong is a better option?

Jeez - they carved us open too easily there.

OK https://www.eplsite.uk/stream23.html Don't click on the top embedded video - it's fake.

What the actual f*ck was that Cedric?

Do yourself a favour and don't bother

She should be in the stocks rather than the stands.

Free header at the back post. Yep.

Jesus f*cking christ. Not even 4 minutes on the clock!

Armstrong at RWB?

Yes, I have done a Google search, and I also understand a bit about how easy it is to get your articles promoted in their searches. I found a load of blogs and opinion pieces from the usual suspects, most of which have no credibility. Just because you found loads of articles saying he lost the case, doesn't mean they are right. If I type "the Earth is flat" into Google I would undoubtedly get loads of results saying it is, but that doesn't make them right. It's not about numbers, it's about facts - something the denial machine sees as a minor nuisance and not to get in the way of a good rant. So let's examine the facts here and look at the actual court transcript of the dismissal of this case... https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm Now I'm going to make a concession here - yes I can see that the judge made reference to costs going to Ball as the case had been dismissed. But to then infer from that that Mann 'lost' the case is a logical fallacy. The judge made no ruling in either party's favour, and this crucial detail is conveniently omitted from every article claiming otherwise. The case was dismissed on grounds of delay, in light of Ball's age and ill health. Now, I agree it seems odd that Mann would allow the situation to drag on for so long, but the insinuation that he did so because he was refusing to submit his data is ridiculous. His data has been available in the public domain since long before this action was brought, and as I posted previously, his original 1998 study has been reproduced multiple times with the researchers supporting the original findings. So to summarise... Mann did not lose the case. Ball has not been vindicated of his libellous comments. The website which published his comments settled out of court and issued an unreserved apology and retraction. The hockey stick study has not been proven to be fraudulent. Subsequent studies have supported its findings using the same data.

How can you possibly give any credence to a blog which begins with a complete falsehood? The hockey stick has not at any point been 'definitively established to be fraud' as he claims. This is just utter nonsense. There have been numerous reconstructions of the study over the years which have all supported its general conclusions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

So what are you saying? You genuinely believe they are a shining beacon of truth and integrity seeking to educate the public on climate science? The Charity Commission ruling that their work was more political than educational, forcing them, to create a non-charitable subsidiary to continue, is rather telling, don't you think?

That link... Jesus Christ. Jesus f*cking Christ! Ball did NOT win the court case. He himself applied to have it dismissed on the grounds of his age and ill health. Mann was NOT ordered to pay any costs, nor was there any ruling that he failed to provide his data. It is already in the public domain FFS - http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/ The FCPP settled out of court in June and issued a full retraction and apology to Mann - https://web.archive.org/web/20190609170116/https://fcpp.org/retraction-and-apology-to-michael-mann/ But yeah, other than that, everything on the GWPF article is completely kosher and above board.

It's so cringy. It's like an episode of The Office, with the shaky camera and all the people stood around him looking awkward. He basically comes across as the drunk uncle at a wedding who wasn't due to give a speech but insists on making one anyway.

It's interesting that you have deliberately omitted the rest of the 'funding sources' section of their Wiki entry, which paints a very different picture from their launch statement. The GWPF is no more a charity than Eton school is. The only reason it even has charity status is to avoid paying any tax and revealing its sources of funding. They exist solely to spread disinformation about climate science, and were forced to create a completely separate subsidiary - the GWP Forum - following a ruling from the Charity Commission that their work was of a political rather than an educational nature. https://www.desmog.co.uk/global-warming-policy-foundation They have no scientific credibility whatsoever. They are nothing more than a lobby group for powerful interests who want to see environmental regulations slashed. I would seriously recommend to anybody like Scally who wants to do some independent research into climate issues to completely ignore anything they say on the matter.