Sheaf Saint

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.

Don't you think it would be wise to see who we actually end up appointing before reaching for the razor blades?

Don't believe a single word you read printed by the GWPF. It is a secretly-funded right-wing think tank, based at 55 Tufton Street alongside the Taxpayers Alliance and others, founded by Nigel Lawson with the sole purpose of muddying the waters of the climate change debate. It has ZERO credibility. This article is an absurd twisting of the facts of this case which bears no relationship to the truth. https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1164910044414189568?lang=en http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

https://kaybdotblog.wordpress.com/2019/11/07/why-i-empty-chaired-the-tory-party-chairman/ So digging a little deeper it seems like he and his aide agreed to squeeze it in at the last minute, hence why it wasn't in any schedule, and then changed their minds claiming there wasn't time. Seems like a reasonable explanation, and a bit of an over-reaction from KB. Nothing really to see here then.

Well of course he's going to say that isn't he.

Amazing interview with James Cleverly on Sky this morning... https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1192079224779264000 Sorry, make that yesterday morning.

And yet you are no different. Because the referendum returned the result that you wanted, you have spent the last 3 and a half years metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LAALAALLAAAA" whenever anyone tries to point out how flawed the process was. What do you say to the fact that BoJo is currently sitting on and refusing to publish a report into Russian interference in the referendum?

You have regularly (and rightly) called out other people for using childish insults instead of debating in a reasoned, adult manner. And in these four words you have just waived the right to ever claim that moral high ground again.

Yes I'm well aware there are a lot of opposing viewpoints to be found online, and sometimes they can even look quite convincing in terms of their professionalism and scientific validity. But, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of the articles/papers out there attempting to 'debunk fake news' can easily be identified as fake news themselves. If you have found some that cannot then I would be very interested to read them, if you're willing to share them with us?

So because a conservative commentator on Sky News Australia has identified that one or two fake signatories managed to evade the vetting process on the petition (unfortunate, but inevitable given the numbers), you reckon the whole thing is bullsh!t? This guy has form. He's essentially the Australian equivalent of Tucker Carlson on Fox News and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. He claims that this paper has not been peer reviewed, but it's in the BioScience journal published by Oxford University Press... https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/pages/About This guy is talking out of his ar$e, and can be confidently ignored.

I get all that, and I'm in no way sticking my head in the sand and pretending he's great. I'm just pointing out that our failure to bring in the players we need in the last couple of windows cannot be blamed solely on the owner's unwillingness to spend. We are completely hamstrung by the FFP rules and the obscene wages we are paying to players who contribute literally nothing. Until that situation is resolved, which most agree will take at least another summer window (but most likely longer), it is not really possible to make a true judgement on Gao in terms of player recruitment. I do, however, concede that all of the other issues you rightly point out are a very good reason to be suspicious that he won't suddenly become a big spender once the deadwood has been cleared.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Many people are decrying Gao for not sticking his and in his pocket, but the issue isn't that we can't afford to buy decent players, it's that the bloated wage bill currently doesn't allow it. We're stuck paying the excessive wages of players who are never going to play for our first team ever again - Forster, Carillo, Hoedt, Lemina, Elyounoussi. That's an eye-watering amount of money for us to be forking out each month for zero return. I'm not suggesting for a second that we would instantly start splashing out in the transfer market as soon as we get them all off the books, but let's wait until we are in that situation before passing true judgement on Gao as an owner, as we genuinely can't right now.

In the words of someone I saw on Twitter, when someone like Hammond no longer feels at home in the Tory party, you know they have gone seriously rotten. I find it amazing how you have spent the last few years criticising Labour for (among other things) becoming too extreme and alienating the centre ground, yet you seem positively ecstatic about the Tories doing exactly the same thing in the other direction. Just weird.

Subbed off for Robson-Kanu, who then scores within minutes of coming on.