The only thing I can say to that is, - if rovers were looking for players good enough to get us out of the championship and into the prem, I would pray that Gally wasn't one of them.

It doesn't matter whether he has cost us next to nothing Philip. I was questioning Hughes judgement in this case. Gally wasn't and will never be, good enough for Prem/ championship football. There was absolutely no point keeping him at Ewood.

Which just goes to show that all managers make mistakes. Most people on here didn't think he was worth a new deal, for some strange reason, Hughes did.

North End bottom of the league!

Hmmm? Petrov is a good player - full stop. He aint THAT good though. He's a speed merchant with a good cross. Force him inside and [like Wright Philips] he doesn't offer much. Rovers didn't do their homework tonight. If they did, - god help us.

You didn't answer my question BP.

Do you want to make a serious proposal, or just continue to berate anyone who responds to you?

I've been asked to store this topic, where people can access it easily. I thought this forum might be the best place for it.

I'll play along. You start with the number of times they've been right. Off you go............ Struggling? Just goes to show what a daft statement that was.

Says who? "This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no. The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming." One possible explanation? Again Bazza, you're using your ignorance of the subject, to cast doubt on the facts. [and that isn't meant to be nasty.] I don't think you or I know enough about the science involved, to make claims that "I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly"

I told you never ask "why". Go find the facts yourself. For example: why does rises in co2 have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around? - You use that question as a reason to doubt Global warming. Don't ask "why", ask yourself - who would know the answer to that question. Then, ask that person what can cause rises in co2 to have a several handed year lag behind temperature rises, not the other way around? You will no doubt get the answer. Because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there is any doubt about it. Likewise your question about how can scientist predict temperatures in 30, 40n or 50 years if they only have an 80% chance of getting next weeks forecast correctly? Ask the right person and get the facts. If they're wrong in what they're saying, it will show. I haven't said what I believe either Bazza. I'm not the one who says they don't believe what the concensus of scientists tell us. If I can't prove otherwise, I accept it until I know different.

Of course I can see the different positions. What I don't understand, is when someone comes out with a statement that calls something into question, then can't demonstrate why they say that - and have nothing of real substance to back it up. It makes me suspicious of their real motives. I suppose it's my background of electrical CNC machine repair. Facts, nothing else. By all means ask where, when, how, but never ask why - n' all that! Troubleshooting.

Thanks Philipl. Also, the first article linked by Bazza says "The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions." You can always surf the net for cuttings about people who don't accept the Global warming debate. What you need to find are many more SCIENTISTS who can precisely counteract and demonstrate, that the facts of human involvement in climate change - as accepted by scientific institutions such as the Royal Society, are wrong.

Bazza?

Remind me then, which part of the stern report is wrong?

American, Bazza - if you want to deny the science, to have any credibility, you must say where it's wrong. Neither of you have, or could do.

Quote Bazza: I have a suspicion that the great global warming debate is not only an environmental argument, but an argument made by western governments to retain their position of economic global monopoly You can't back that up with any science whatsoever, that's why this debate continues. What you are saying there, is that global warming doesn't exist, it's all a political argument. Jonathan Porritt was on radio this morning, discussing global warming. He points to the fact that around 20 scientists world wide, go against the overwhelming number of scientists who back the global warming evidence. Out of these 20, not one of them have produced or written a paper on the subject. They simply say they don't believe the evidence - which is now your position, different from where you started. You need 100% proof that global warming is real, yet link to any minor article that doesn't approve the theory.

Not everyone's impressed with the times author. The truth of the climate and the sun.

until some boffin can come onto the television and say that man-made Co2 emission is defiantly behind the rise in global temps whilst dispelling all the other competing theories, That's what they are saying Bazza. There are other minor contributing factors they say, but the overwhelming reason for climate change is man made. Anyhow, I've done more than enough arguing on here today, so fair do's - merry christmas Bazza.

The only 100% truth that you must see, will be when global warming either happens, or doesn't happen. From the Stern review: This chapter begins by describing the changes observed in the Earth’s system, examining briefly the debate over the attribution of these changes to human activities. It is a debate that, after more than a decade of research and discussion, has reached the conclusion there is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least the past 50 years. An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Most climate models show that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases is very likely to commit the Earth to a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures. This level of greenhouse gases will probably be reached between 2030 and 2060. A warming of 5°C on a global scale would be far outside the experience of human civilisation and comparable to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. Several new studies suggest up to a 20% chance that warming could be greater than 5°C. Link to more of the Stern review So, which part of the science is wrong Bazza and what about the overwhelming body of scientific evidence? I would have thought that when Scientists present overwhelming conclusions, that we laymen might accept it, unless we had real reason to doubt it.

I'm listening to the vast majority of scientists and reading their evidence. If you read the links that I've highlighted, you will see some of the answers regarding the odd scientist who doesn't go along with the evidence. Bazza just doesn't believe it, with no evidence as to the contrary.

I suspect you wouldn't accept any evidence of climate change Bazza. Anyhow, in reply to your point above: in particular -Misleading arguments 2. Read all of this

You will just have to rely on the worlds' leading scientists then Bazza. They're convinced. As explained HERE. What would it take to convince you?

Theno, Jim, Shillitto. Cut out the insults, then try again.

I'll answer your question about Donnelly with absolute certainty rover6. Donnelly wasn't strong enough, wasn't fast enough, couldn't get up or down enough and wasn't technically good enough. He was nowhere near the required level for Premiership football. That's a guy who fits into your crusade for any youngster showing anything at all in youth/reserve team football, to be thrown into the first team.