Sheaf Saint

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.

VVD coming on then.

Mental. Was blatantly a foul on Long.

"I think the British do best when they apply a little starch to their upper lips" Does he actually realise what century this is?

All you need to know about Rees-Mogg... https://www.facebook.com/hazad31/videos/10155105290707017/

Personally I would be very happy if he became the next Tory leader. As if May isn't already doing a good enough job of convincing people how hopelessly out of touch with reality they are, this guy would take it to a whole new level.

Done. This one was much less clumsily put together than the last one, and I was happy to complete it. Good luck with your project.

That's because you're only a registered user and not a paid-up full member.

Going to Spurs for £38m according to SSN

Given 'Arry's prior reputation of being able to demotivate and ruin our youth players, I can't help but feel this is a very bad move for him and for us.