Minty

lol, loving that quote.

Jos Hooiveld on Twitter: James Ward-Prowse on Twitter:

OK, so it's not *technically* inevitable, but it is statistically HIGHLY unlikely that we'll break the record, which is clearly what he means, irrespective of how Saints are playing at the moment. It doesn't matter if he watches Saints regularly or not, I think it's a fair statement. We can break the record, but the odds of doing so are still very big.

That did make me chuckle. The club would also have something to say about it seeing as they share the copyright...

A 'Kick Racism Out' badge probably, without having looked more closely.

And as usual, the journalists overplay things and try to turn a valid scientific debate into some kind of point scoring exercise: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/#more-5540 This is what annoys me most about this whole issue - at every turn someone is waiting to see 'This proves x' or 'This proves y' when Science generally just wants to carry on looking into it with an open mind. Newspapers (on both sides of the scale) interpret it all in ways that back their beliefs, and the people who read those papers do the same. It's the way the research is reported, even by the scientists themselves, that is interpreted and misinterpreted, often because of the use of only one or two words that prompt a reaction. That said, even some scientists seem to be more interested in disagreement than ongoing research so there's probably no hope of us ever learning anything with an open mind.

Singling out one tactical decision is a bit silly but no one can argue that overall, the whole package that Adkins has brought, in terms of tactical nouse, individual and team motivation, training, adaptability, fan interaction, transfers and everything else, is probably second to none in our history. I say that with no disrespect to the likes of Lawrie or Ted Bates who clearly did very well here and earnt a place in Saints history as managers, but in this day and age, with the scrutiny and exposure that teams and players are under, and the financial risks and rewards at stake, I think the pressure is a lot greater and so his abilities are, potentially, far greater in this context.

Turns out it wasn't the Met Police at all, but ill-informed journos. And surprise, surprise, it was complete bo!!ocks:

I once went to a 'meeting' with 'SISA' as part of another fans' group. As you would expect from two groups who have the best intentions of all Saints fans at heart, they were very welcoming, it was friendly and non-confrontational, no one felt threatened at all and there were only positives to come from the meeting. At least I think that's how it went, my memory is going a bit...

Add my name to that list.

And some people say mobile technology is ruling our lives... what do they know?

I agree, most people will only do something when it starts affecting them directly. Reactive, rather than proactive. Human's are good at that, it's the default setting. It's the same with food security... we can act now and help make our food systems more sustainable, but until more people look at the bigger picture, then nothing is likely to change until it becomes a serious problem. And by serious I mean leading to more civil unrest and even wars, IMO. That'll be fun then.

Hammond is suspended for tomorrow, and is then available again Saturday. http://www.thefa.com/thefa/disciplinary/suspensionlists

Well below par but still managed to get a point - overall we can't be too unhappy with the outcome. And as I've said before, an occasional kick up the arse like that is sometimes a good thing. Reading did well but we brought most of the pressure on to ourselves with some very poor passing, especially underhit touches and lay offs, just like the one that tempted Hammond into his sending off. I felt a bit sorry for him and you couldn't argue with the decision but both his bookings came from him simply trying to battle hard and win possession back after teammates had lost the ball. We know we can play better than that. The effort was there and I didn't think there was any complacency, we simply played bad football and too many passes failed to connect. On the plus side, I thought we defended pretty well and given that our defending hasn't been the best at times this season, and we lost Fonte at half time. Martin did well coming on into a tough game, and the whole side battled hard... we would've made it much easier for ourselves had our passing been even vaguely close to how we've seen in most games. The team need to be hard on themselves and recognise how underpar they were, but not dwell on it too long. We know we can be better and we just need to get back to what we're capable of.

It is undoubtedly a major cost issue for new homes but the net balance is more than likely to result in savings in the long term, especially with energy prices continuing to rise. Of course, it's hard to factor that in at the beginning, but it is worth it overall.

And Coxford and Shirley and Thornhill and Lordshill and all the other places I've seen solar panels...

dune, are you physically able to discuss this without resorting to ridiculous insults?

Bizarrely there is a page still on the OS about Alex Pearce, although I suspect it's because of the platform that the OS's use so this is actually a page from the Readign site, but viewed through our site. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10280~37746,00.html

You can catch it on iPlayer dune and let us know what you think.

lol - this may come as a shock dune, but people can have different opinions on different subjects.

Absolutely. But we're talking about the human race's ability to deal with it, not mother nature. She'll be fine, with or without us.

A pet subject of mine this, but perhaps for slightly different reasons than you might expect. Absolutely, and it's no surprise. Humans are creatures of habit, and we all know how difficult it can be to change a habit, especially a long standing one. None of us are any different in this respect, most things we do we had to learn and get used to over a long period of time. Even simple recycling, for whatever reason people do it, takes time to embed into daily life. I have friends who often apologise for things because they think I'm going to judge them for it. I make it clear, and this is the basis for my opinion on the subject overall, that we are all individuals who have choices to make, and we cannot and should not judge ourselves against a blanket criteria or impression of 'The Perfect Human'. If however, we learn about something that makes us want to change our habits, then it is a gradual process and we should encourage others to make gradual changes over time, and not judge them for failing to do so overnight. Yes, that will be a part of it, but as I said above, people cannot and will not change habits overnight, but if they are making efforts to do so then it will gradually become easier to do so for other things in the future. I don't have a car now, but it took a long time to break the habit and there are times when I really struggle without one. I don't always remember to do certain things that I encourage others to do, but that's because I'm human and I'm not perfect. Overall, IMO we need to foster a culture of education and encouragement. Criticising others for what they're not doing will not encourage them to continue the things they are. It's like stopping smoking... it takes time and encouragement or it's easy to slip back. And no matter where you start, any improvement should be welcomed. If you smoked 40 a day and halve that, that deserves just as much credit as the person reducing from 5 a day to 3, even though they are still smoking far more. Sadly yes, I agree, and I think it will be our downfall. Personal responsibility is a concept seemingly lost nowadays, from money to the environment to watching your feet when walking down the street... trip over something and it's 'who can I sue?'. Individually it is hard to make a difference, but if i can influence 100 people, and they can each influence 100 etc, etc, who knows?

Interesting point that one... why the assumption that lives must be affected in a negative way? 'Green' industries are growing and if governments would actually invest in them, we could see increases in living standards as well as economic growth on the back of technological advances, all whilst moderating our influence on the climate (not to mention addressing resource issues, such as peak oil and food security). That's for another thread, but in short, lives do not have to be changed in a negative way. Also, is the threat to human life not a negative thing? If climate change potentially limits our own existence, then the options are (simplistically) change and allow our race to exist for longer, or don't change and possibly wave goodbye?

There is 200x more CO2 in the atmosphere than Methane, and the amount of warming Methane contributes is 28% of the warming that CO2 contributes. It is important to moderate ALL 'greenhouse gases' but it's also important to say that the main reason that any methane emissions from animals would increase is because of the industrialisation of meat production and the need for an unsustainable increase in meat farming... which was caused by humans. As for volcanoes, they emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, Human CO2 emissions are believed to be around 29 billion tonnes per year. Again, it should be monitored but it is ultimately very small in comparison.

And indeed even more points of view including links to 13 other studies that have shown that cosmic rays are not as influential. And this is my point. Science continues to experiment and theories continue to evolve. So why do so many people seek to close out the discussion with a black or white answer?