den

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.

http://www.brfcs.co.uk/mb/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=565539

No, his point was that there was something lacking with the clubs inability to develop Donnelly, rather than admitting that Donnelly wasn't/isn't good enough.

American, you think he IS good enough? 'cos he aint. Not yet anyway. [splutter, faint].

Well their fans were wrong, whereas several managers were right about him. You have to realise that the best people to judge a young player aren't the fans - you or me, Rover6, it is the managers/coaches who work with the players day in, day out. They see the weaknesses, they see the reasons why certain players wont make it in the tough world of pro football. We were discussing Treacy and you judging him as ready for the first team because of his form in the reserves and the Republic under 21s. I didn't say that no-one makes it from the reserves Rover6. I said it was a huge gap between the reserve league and the [in our case] Prem. and it is - massive, especially nowadays, when reserve sides are mainly made up of youths. So while performing well in reserve team football is essential in most cases [barring the odd George Best who was obviously head and shoulders above anyone at a comparable age], it is by no means a guage of first team readiness. I've seen many rovers youngsters playing for two or three seasons and performing well in the pontins/central league, but never making even a single first team appearance, then disappearing completely. Now your argument is that if they had been given a chance, they might have made it. Well, they might. The fact that very, very few youngsters make it back at a high level [which is rovers and the prem, in our case], suggests that the vast majority wouldn't.

What would you like TB to do about a player that isn't and never was good enough to play league football, Rover6? You have to get things in perspective here. Being the best prospect at a club means nothing, - there are thousands of these in amateur football. Likewise, reserve success - what reserve success are you talking about? Whenever I saw him for the reserves he was always lacking. England youth standard is a standard way below the football league standard. There are some real tough guys around even at clubs like Fleetwood, - there are none at youth level. You also mentioned that Treacy was in the form of his life, - but that was in the reserves and in the Republic under 21 team, for goodness sake. I'm not sure that he was what you said anyway - the form of his life. The step up from reserve level to first team level is Massive. Don't underestimate how big a leap it is.

To be fair though Rev, that would apply to any player at the club. Depends what you mean by suitable.

Yeah, I don't want to get sucked in either,especially as we're off topic. - and I know what you mean Matt, I just wanted you to explain how Rangers were grander, apart from their support. The bit in bold is pretty grand as well.

It's a nailed on certainty that they play in the champs league, they have no-one to beat. If they played in the prem, they wouldn't be doing. - just like rovers don't.

You said they are a grander club than rovers, so I'm just asking this Matt - They get more fans on than rovers do, due to there being no other other clubs in Scotland. What else makes them "grander" than rovers?

They get more fans on than rovers do, due to there being no other other clubs in Scotland. What else makes them "grander" than rovers, Rovermatt?

The reason why these two can never play together, is that neither of them can play the short, clever passing game, in the centre of the park, that all the better international sides can. Gerrard is all about big strides, getting up and down the pitch. Lampard does neither.