Sheaf Saint

He certainly fits the stereotype of African footballers - Not particularly skillful but makes up for it with brute strength.

If Wanyama could learn not to be so casual when passing the ball he would be some player.

Well at least the curse of the ex-player isn't going to strike us today now that Puncheon has gone off.

This is good. Keeping possession now to try and settle the game down again.

Not really. Was still deep in their half.

Brilliant. That's what we have been missing all season. Fast breaks resulting in scrappy goals. J-Rod scores while sat on his arse!

Hope Corky is OK. Looked like he fell quite badly on that ankle.

None that I can find. Wiziwig is listing a 500kbps one on Stream Torrent but the channel isn't online.

Am I right in thinking we now have a fully fit squad to choose from? Lovren, Gaston and Wanyama all back from injury now. We don't have anybody else out do we?

I really f***ing hate Luis Suarez, the cheating, diving little c**t. But therein is the difference. Give him a chance like the one he took for 1-0 and nine times out of ten he will stick it away, whereas J-Rod will nine times out of ten pass it straight at the keeper.

I don't think it was a case of lacking confidence as such. He seemed up for it. From my perspective the reason he didn't perform at his best was because he was chucked out in an unfamiliar role as a winger in a 4-man midfield, and didn't appear to have much licence to run directly at the defence as he does so well for us.

Doesn't really matter. You can't seem to travel any more than about 10 miles on a motorway these days without coming across a long section of coned-off roadworks with average-speed cameras enforcing a 50mph limit anyway.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/world-2014-extreme-weather-events?CMP=fb_gu

Sorry but that statement is misleading, as all the available evidence suggests otherwise. By studying ice cores we have ascertained (to a reasonable degree of accuracy) global temperatures for the last 600,000 years, and the current rate of warming, since the dawn of the industrial era, is ten times greater than the average warming rate throughout that period. The Milankovitch-Croll cycles, which are the biggest natural drivers of climate change, don't explain the current rate of warming either.

I see you completely ignored my previous post then. I think I probably fit into your completely inaccurate stereotype of 'tree-hugging alarmist' so which part of 'a certain degree of adaptation will certainly be required' leads you to believe I am arrogant enough to think otherwise? You also continue to ignore all the evidence which shows we have already affected our environment substantially, and that the ability to change it further is well within the bounds of possibility. If you could provide some counter evidence which reinforces your position then I would be very interested to read it.

Wrong. Try googling 'solar radiation management' and learn a little about the various geoengineering techniques which are potentially capable of lessening the impact of climate change (provided the world's governments can come to some kind of agreement about them, that is). It's a fascinating subject which completely undermines your statement. Well yes, a degree of adaptation will certainly be required, and many strategies for just this are already in place. Just ask the residents of places like Happisburgh in Norfolk, where communities are already under threat from coastal erosion due to sea-level rise. The concepts of climate mitigation and climate adaptation are not mutually exclusive you know.

Edit: right, ignore that. It appears the article claiming his reported death is a hoax is, in fact, a hoax.

Yes I quite agree, which is why I didn't post "Yes, the storms definitely ARE caused by global warming" in the same way they claimed the opposite. It is a positive step forward from Prof. Collins of the Met stating that they had no evidence at all to link the phenomena, and completely undermines the conclusions the Mail drew from his comments.

That would be bad... very, very bad. RIP Harold.

So despite the Mail being desperate to suggest otherwise, it seems now there is some evidence to suggest that the recent stormy weather is linked to climate change... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26023166

*Shudders at the thought of Fat Sam's brand of anti-football ever being played in the Champions League*

I had grave reservations about his signing before it happened. He has a repeated history of violent clashes with team-mates and there was a very good reason the Roma fans hated him. Clearly a talented player but it was obvious even to me that his presence would upset the strong team bond that is the basis for our success the last few years. Add in the fact that he didn't really want to come here in the first place (he was blatantly hoping to sign for a 'bigger' club) and the transfer was never going to work out. As much as I really wanted to believe he could put all his past troubles behind him and integrate with and enhance our squad, deep down I knew it wouldn't happen. I thought he might last longer than half a season though. Signing him was a massive gamble that failed.

And in your warped mind that's how you win arguments is it? By proving yourself so unworthy of even debating with that people give up? Just... wow.

Oh dear f*cking lord GM. Seriously???? A very quick google search reveals that this is all copied and pasted from an article on the Alliance of British Drivers website (and that's really going to be an impartial place, isn't it ) which contains precisely ZERO references to any documents or research data which substantiate the claims made in it. You sir, are a f*cking joke. You cannot debate with any degree of reason or logic which stands up to the premise/inference test. When faced with requests to provide evidence to support your claims you either ignore them or you reply with a puerile insult. When you do manage to find some evidence which you believe supports your position and it is easily debunked, again you either ignore it or just reply with spiteful ad hominem attacks. Anybody who has studied science at degree level, as you claim to have, knows that all of the this is gross bad practice and guaranteed to destroy any credibility your arguments may have. If you used valid reasoning and logic to arrive at your conclusions, and could demonstrate that logic by supporting your claims with credible evidence that speaks for itself, there would be absolutely no need for you to act like such a c*ck towards anybody who disagrees with you, but you can't. If you've got a degree in chemistry then I'm the queen of f*cking Sheeba. I take my leave of you now, as I don't see how anything positive can be gained by engaging with you any further.

I'm just trying to understand how your reference to an inaccurate weather forecast from 1987 relates to your contention that the Mail article you quoted kills this thread, as if it somehow disproves the theory of AGW. If you could provide some actual deductive reasoning to reinforce your position that would be really helpful. But you have proven time and time again that you can't.