Sheaf Saint

This is the level of stupid we are dealing with...

Yes, I agree. The key phrase in my original post was "in some cases at least". I'm not suggesting that it applies to all cases and nor would I. I just think that it is a very important avenue of investigation when trying to identify the root causes of radicalisation.

I think you misunderstand the point I am making. I'm not talking about the people at the very top, I'm referring to the foot soldiers, the pawns, the suicide bombers themselves. I have no doubt that the ISIS top brass are clever and manipulative enough to influence other people to carry out their bidding for them. They know exactly how to prey on the vulnerable to convince them that blowing themselves up in the name of the cause is a noble and honourable act that will guarantee their entry into paradise. What I am interested in is what makes these people vulnerable enough to accept this in the first place, because anybody who believes that murdering a load of innocent people and blowing themselves up in the process, because some magic man in the sky will reward them in the afterlife is a great idea, is quite obviously not of sound mind and judgement. Yes it is and no it doesn't. This is clearly a very contentious issue that polarises opinion, as demonstrated by this long-running thread. But one thing that I think we can all agree on - to a man - is that none of us supports terrorist activity and we all want to see it reduced or eliminated completely. For that to happen we need to look at all the potential reasons why people choose that life path in the first place, and that means exploring all avenues and being open to all possibilities. We need to identify the root causes of the behaviour so we can prevent people from becoming radicalised in the first place, and I firmly believe that mental health is one area that needs to be seriously considered in that respect. In the UK at least, why is it that the people who carry out these attacks are almost always young and from under-privileged backgrounds? Why do these young people feel so disenfranchised and disillusioned with society that they feel it necessary to look to this alternative narrative being promoted by ISIS? Is it possible that there is a correlation between the rising numbers of attacks in recent years and the cuts to public services that have severely restricted access to youth mental health services? These are all very important questions that need investigating if we are ever to get to the root cause of the problem IMO.

Now this is an interesting point you raise, and one worthy of discussion. Whenever something like Las Vegas happens, the immediate assumption is that the perpetrator must have had some kind of mental illness. Why is it that nobody ever seems willing to ask this question when the attacks are carried out by someone with brown skin and a middle-eastern sounding name? Is it not possible that, in some cases at least, mental illness has a part to play when people become radicalised?

Went to see Bladerunner 2049 last night. Wow. I was very dubious when I heard there was a sequel in production, but I was absolutely blown away by it. A totally absorbing cinematic experience and I can't fault a single aspect of it. I think this could be the first time I have ever given a film 10/10.

Yeah enjoyed it so far. It has a very different feel to any of the series that came before it. But that was inevitable given the massive budget and the on-demand nature of TV watching these days, meant they could produce a serialised and cinematic show instead of the episodic ones that came before. I like the fact that there is a dark edge to it as well. Starfleet has always been depicted as a shining beacon of honour and integrity in the past, but already with Discovery we can see that the captain is obviously being entrusted to use whatever devious, underhanded tactics he sees fit in the fight against the Klingons. Kirk or Picard would never have busted a prisoner out of a transport ship to recruit them to his crew like that. Looking forward to seeing how it unfolds.

That wasn't on a saturday afternoon though

That's all well and good. But he offers no goal threat whatsoever. If we are going to persist with playing a lone striker, then that player needs to be someone who can actually stick the ball in the net. And when the 3 attacking midfielders behind him don't/can't chip in with goals as well, it's a recipe for disaster.

I'm not really qualified to answer that as I confess that my understanding of economics is very limited. On paper, they have costed everything they want to pay for and stated how the revenue will be raised. As to how that would work in practice I can't really say. I was just pointing out that there is a constant narrative that Labour = bad for the economy and that Tories = good for the economy, but the statistics show that narrative to be false.

The idea that the Tories are more trustworthy than Labour when it comes to managing the country's finances is a myth... http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

We're actually looking a lot more dangerous now. need to get a goal from it while we can.

Finally we force De Gea into a save!

Good tempo and intensity so far. But Utd have already cottoned on to the fact that we will be looking to get it up to Long quickly and have got 3 defenders on him every time the ball gets near him. We need Davis and Tadic to be closer to him when the ball gets to him, so he can lay it off to them when he gets crowded out.

It really doesn't. It's an essential tool when making projections because it gives us a frame of reference. How can climate scientists convince policy makers of the need for action if they can't show a valid projection of the consequences of inaction? They can't. There are a number of examples of 'populist shyte' which cloud the issue (such as the constant harping on about polar bears) but the business as usual baseline scenario really isn't one of them.

It's just a commonly used term to describe one of a number of possible future emissions baseline scenarios that are fed into computer models to make projections about possible future warming. Nobody is actually suggesting that we continue down that path (except, it seems, Trump and his friends in the oil industry). http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=286

Continuing with our current rate of emissions

Yes, I like it too. It appears to be a thoroughly well researched paper. Have you even read it? I ask because the study appears to prove the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make... "Abstract We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. A significant but smaller information flow comes from aerosol direct and indirect forcing, and on short time periods, volcanic forcings. In contrast the causality contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not significant. The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes. Conclusions... Using the IF concept we were able to confirm the inherent one-way causality between human activities and global warming, as during the last 150 years the increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing is driving the increasing global temperature, a result that cannot be inferred from traditional time delayed correlation or ordinary least square regression analysis. Natural forcing (solar forcing and volcanic activities) contributes only marginally to the global temperature dynamics during the last 150 years. Human influence, especially via CO2 radiative forcing, has been detected to be significant since about the 1960s. This provides an independent statistical confirmation of the results from process based modelling studies. Investigation of the temperature simulations from the CMIP5 ensemble is largely in agreement with the conclusion drawn from the observational data. However on very long time scales (800,000 years) the IF is only significant in the direction from air temperature to CO2. This supports the idea that the feedback of GHGs to temperature changes seems to be much slower than the fast response of temperature to changes in GHGs48. The spatial explicit analysis strongly indicates that the increasing anthropogenic forcing is causing very differing effects regionally with some regions in the southern hemisphere showing large IF values. Regions of significant IF do coincide with regions having stronger than average recent warming trends. Our observational data-based study, therefore, not only provides complementary support for the results from global circulation modelling, but also calls for attention for further research in regions of increased sensitivity to the forcing resulting from anthropogenic activities." If you think this piece offers "slam dunk, scientific proof" that the theory of AGW is false, then you are even stranger than I ever previously thought. Edit: OK, I see now on re-reading that you were attempting to be sarcastic, and you highlighted a small section of a study that explained some uncertainties in the modelling system to show how flawed the research is. But you still completely ignored the fact that the conclusions drawn by the authors of the paper are in direct contradiction to your main argument.

So you can't provide any data to prove your assertion that there has been no warning over the last 15 years then. And instead start with the childish mocking, right on cue.

Now if you could provide some verified data to support your claim, rather than just an unsubstantiated article from the BBC news, we can have a sensible, reasoned debate.

Certainly... https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally Edit: Here's the NASA data in graph form...

I would say that his credibility was blown when he copied and pasted a load of utter codsh!t from the website of the Association of British Drivers and tried to present it as proof that climate change is just a hoax. Now he is citing the BBC as a data source when asked to support his claim of no warming for the last 15 years. If he is true to form, he will shortly start hurling childish abusive insults at anyone who dares to produce evidence which shows how wrong his claims are.

Can you please provide a source for this? All the information I can find from verified sources contradicts this, so I would be very interested to know what data you are basing this on.

I only caught the last 20 minutes. What was Davis' goal like?

Phew.

Disappointing, but not the least bit surprising. Every club has its fair share of total d!ckhead fans, and we are no exception.