badgerx16

17th March (H) v Palarse 21st April (A) Coventry

Well that is one source of hot air I'd willingly cull for the good of the planet

Please refer to the following link :http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229&gclid=CK2OqfnxkpkCFQ0zQgodu0zxbQ and look at 'misleading argument 6'. :cool: Plus, this is from the British Antarctic Survey in response to the 'documentary film' "The Great Global Warming Swindle" : A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions. ( http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178 )

Quotes from some of the 500 or so scientists listed by the Heartland Institute as supporting that organisation's work in de-bunking Global Warming :- "I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite." - Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh “I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."- Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University “I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."- Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford “Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"- Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University “I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."- Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University “They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science."- Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey “Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research."- Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo :rolleyes::rolleyes:

By the time it kicks off we could be above them ; we have Brum away then 2 home ( Derby and QPR ), they have Norwich at home then 2 away ( Sheff Utd & Barnsley ).

Radio Suffolk have gone and done the same thing, barstewards.

BBC Radio Suffolk on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_suffolk/, if you can bear some slightly biased coverage.

We also got 4 league wins in a row in November / December that season. God, that's a lifetime away

Probably last season's pre-season: Eastleigh Sat 14 15:00 A Pre-Season Won 4 - 2 Svarstad Mon 16 19:00 A Pre-Season Won 12 - 0 Kvik Halden Wed 18 17:30 A Pre-Season Won 4 - 1 Bournemouth Sat 21 15:00 A Pre-Season Won 2 - 1 Exeter Tue 24 19:30 A Pre-Season Won 4 - 2

They have also got Bristol City, Swansea, Reading, Sheff Utd, and Preston

I think it's the away game at Watford, in which case Tuesday 7th April, and we play away at Wolves that Friday afternoon.

I'd rather win the game in hand and know that a point at Forest was enough - but better still to be 4 points clear of 22nd place by the time we get to the City Ground

Excellent result, but the next two games are now crucial, as they are both away whilst Forest and Plymouth each have 2 home games coming up, ( Norwich similarly to us have 2 away ). If we can keep within 3 points of the two teams immediately above us then the fact we would still have a game in hand may be decisive, as we then have successive home games whilst they are away. At least we are showing some spirit and today's rearguard action for the last few minutes will hopefully show that we have developed some backbone.

With regard to re-reading the whole thread and making judgements on 'sceptics', go back and re-read posts #1 and #9 Just to make my position clear; I am a biological scientist by training, though not any longer by vocation I have NOT seen any of the Al Gore film, though I have seen 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I base my views on interpreting articles in magazines such as New Scientist, and looking at research such as that conducted by the British Antarctic Survey and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project. I do not read much of the printed daily press anymore. I personally believe that human activity is exacerbating a natural phenomenon, though I do not think that we will be able to conclusively prove this within my lifetime, ( and I hope there is plenty of that still to come ). This activity is not restricted to the burning of hydrocarbon fuels; de-forestation and marine pollution also have an impact on the 'carbon cycle'. And regardless of whether we are making things worse or not, there is plenty we need to do to mitigate the impact of climate change, and if that includes changing people's behaviour and expectations 'just in case' we are affecting things, I do not see that as a a problem. After all, we need to know what we will be doing when the oil and gas run out.

I wasn't sure at first whether I was offended or not, but I have decided that it is probably more sensitive and Christian to feel sorry for you.

If they're a 'fairly poor' team, yet could well be safe, then what does it make us

Better a "tree hugging lefty paper" than xenophobic, bigoted, rags devoted to greed and avarice like the Tory press. Climate change is a fact - there can be absolutely no doubt about that. Whether it is solely due to natural geological and climatic cycles, or whether it is being made worse by the actions of man, does not alter the underlying truths; the Earth is coming out of an ice age, as a consequence the ice sheets are receding, the glaciers are melting, average annual temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising, trans-oceanic currents are changing course and effect, the percentage of CO2, and other "greenhouse" gases, in the atmosphere is increasing. If anybody does not accept this then they are either a fool or ignorant.

You have to understand, the only FACTs are the ones that support St G's argument - all the rest are fables.

I generally travel less than 40 miles to watch Saints, but then it is usually Preston, Blackpool, the Dingles, and once, Morecambe. To watch them at "home" is about 500 miles round trip

If we had had Saga playing from the outset, rather than McGoaldrought, we would have had more chance of scoring goals, hence of winning games, hence of being further up the league, hence peeps would not be boycotting because of a failed 'experiment', hence the 5000 would not be staying away from the home games.

That's as may be, but how much would an extra 5000 on the gates due to being in the top half of the division have brought in ? Surely that would cover it ? ( EG 5000 extra bums on seats for 8 home games = 40000 paying 'customers'. If each of them paid £20 per ticket, thats £800K ).

The 3 teams immediately above us have... Norwich ( + 2 pts, +10 GD we have 1 game in hand ) Norwich v Coventry QPR v Norwich Blackpool v Norwich Norwich v Cardiff Norwich v Plymouth Notts Forest ( + 3 pts, +5 GD, we have a game in hand ) Reading v Nottm Forest Nottm Forest v Preston Nottm Forest v Swansea Watford v Nottm Forest Burnley v Nottm Forest Plymouth ( +5 pts, +6 GD, we have a game in hand ) Wolverhampton v Plymouth Plymouth v Watford Plymouth v Reading Swansea v Plymouth Norwich v Plymouth Above Plymouth, Barnsley have +5 pts, +8 GD, and a game in hand on us; Watford have +5 pts, +12 GD, and a game in hand of us; Blackpool are +7 pts, +5 GD and we have a game in hand.

OWTS...GMI, OWTSGMI :p:p

Lowe out

So he could smear it into the net ? Or maybe he could spread the ball around ?