Sheaf Saint

JWP coming on

No doubt he will be bemoaning the 'stonewall' penalty they should have had when Chamakh did his birdman impression in the first half.

Double change for Palace.

Now Davis goes close but over the bar. What a different performance this is from the 1st half now.

Lambert close to making it 3-0 - Speroni was beaten.

Waheeeeey! Fooooking awesome!!!!!!!

Hahahah - yeah Alps, Osvaldo is sh*t is he!? Hahahahahahahahaha

How is that not a free kick for climbing all over Lambert!?

Can you give me tonight's lottery numbers please?

The play-acting from Palace today is shocking.

Good pressure here, 3rd straight corner. Need to score now.

Nice quick break from us for once and it creates panic in the Palace defence.

Our defence doesn't seem as solid today as it has in the last few games. Palace are getting a few balls through and causing us problems.

Lucky let off but a definite dive.

Ooooh. So close from Lambert!

Soft booking for Davis that.

That could have been costly. Palace carve us open then.

If anybody is interested in listening to the actual findings of the IPCC then there is a live stream of the presentation from Stockholm available here... http://www.igbp.net/multimedia/multimedia/climatechangeeventlivestream.5.29d2af531409c09b243316.html

Which scientists are you talking to?.... http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/ I searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool, for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles.... By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. I do not claim to be an 'expert' in this field by any means (yet), but I am trying to learn as much about it as I can, and as such I am currently undertaking a part-time degree course with the Open University in Environmental studies, where MMGW is taught as 99.9% fact. If there was as much doubt in the scientific community as you claim there is, why would such well-respected educational institutions as the OU be teaching otherwise? Actually I would say the opposite is true. Over recent years Germany has been investing massively in renewable energy technology such as solar. It doesn't seem to have had the negative affect on their economy that scaremongers like to claim it would in Britain. It's all technology at the end of the day, so somebody has to build, install and maintain it, meaning there is a market there for those willing to invest. If we invest in it and the skeptics turn out to be right, then all it means is that we will have created a cleaner, more sustainable world for nothing. Whereas if we do nothing about it, and the skeptics turn out to be wrong, then the whole of the civilised world is screwed. That's a pretty big gamble IMO, and not one that we should be taking. Yes, I completely agree.

Well yes, technically that is true. But have you not heard of the precautionary principle?

Well, you know what... All you skeptics / deniers (Daily Mail reading non-treehuggers or whatever) have convinced me. F**k it, let's just carry on as we are. Let's just carry on pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while at the same time cutting down huge swathes of rainforest to reduce the amount of that CO2 that can be re-absorbed into the carbon cycle. Oh hell, let's just say balls to renewable energy entirely and put all our efforts into extracting as much coal, oil and gas as we possibly can. Because, at the end of the day, there's always another Earth right next door we can quickly re-locate to if you turn out to be wrong, isn't there! Oh, hang on.....

How is that any different from your labelling of anybody who disagrees with you a tree-hugger?

Models can never provide completely accurate predictions. Every scientist who works with them knows this, and an estimated amount of uncertainty will be allowed for when presenting findings. Even these estimates can be misleading because there will always be unforeseen factors. When dealing with something as dynamic and complex as the Earth's biosphere, there could never be a computer model developed that could take into account all of the possible influencing factors. Unfortunately what tends to happen is the mainstream media reads the findings of these scientists and then prints some sensationalist nonsense based on the worst-case scenario in the predictions, and the ignorant masses lap it up as if it is fact. Then when these 'predictions' fail to materialise, the same ignorant masses scream "See, they don't know what they're talking about. The whole thing is a hoax!"

What extreme climate swings? If you have some evidence of earlier instances where temperatures have risen as rapidly as they have over the last century then please share it with us.

You clearly posted that "We now discover that in the last 15 years global warming has not been happening after all." That statement is completely false as evidenced by all available data. The rate at which the global temperatures has been increasing has slowed from earlier predictions, but the overall trend is still upwards. At the moment it is unclear as to the cause of this slow-down. As with all predictions of this kind, they are based on models which will never be 100% accurate as there will always be unforeseen factors.