Jump to content

 

 

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/01/20 in all areas

  1. Brian talks to Mr Mediocre. It's been a long week, Brian McLauchlin has hung in there, doing the Beau Geste thing. Three interviews with various representatives of, "the Scottish Champions". We saw Aberdeen players milling around Glasgow Airport and an Emirates plane taking off. On Thursday, Steven Gerrard received the Manager of the Month for December award, no footage of the presentation, no mention on Radio or TV. Beau Geste slung the Toerags a rubber. Brian is on the BBC Scotland website and it received radio coverage throughout the day, talking to Mr Mediocre about the need for Scottish football to be saved. Derek is firm, "Scottish football does not need to be saved". I am confused at this point, I am wondering if an evangelical crusade is wandering across the dessert? BBC Scotland did NOT cover the Rangers warm weather training camp(a mile done the road in Dubai), on receiving his Manager of the Month award, Gerrard answered a question on Scottish teams participating in English competitions. He thought it was a good idea and could possibly save Scottish football in providing necessary variety. "Our product is good" bellows Derek. He reinforces it with, "Rangers and Celtic are doing well in Europe". Another continuity problem for PQ there; of Rangers 28 Euro' games over the last two seasons, BBC Scotland have refused to cover 14 of them, because they were played at Ibrox. It's just another PQ Gang Hut production, masters of the intermittent broadcast. I hope it's not because Michael Stewart does not like the way Rangers do things as a club? Next season, may I suggest spends a week talking to Chris McLaughlin, it will be the same effect and cost a helluva lot less.
    2 points
  2. Its mine now is it? Bugger. You might have told me we were playing pass the parcel.
    2 points
  3. I'd rather be a Mullah than a tim
    2 points
  4. Lets be fair to Buster here. As (I assume) a lay person, he is unlikely to be qualified to critique the science any more than anyone else here,. [NB: I'll happily stand corrected if anyone does have a background in climate science or related topics.] However, as a fellow lay person I tend to fall back on some of the stuff I learned at school about looking at the sources of information/evidence presented, to consider the veracity of the source and any agenda they may or may not have. Now, when I look at the climate science issue, I think: the received wisdom here is that we have a climate emergency and that most ardent campaigners are very forthright in spelling out what they say are urgent issues that need the full attention of our global leaders. Is this really the case? Who is arguing that its not? Craig posted a little meme there speaking about Judith Curry not being taken seriously whereas Thunberg is... so a little research on Curry shows that there are prominent climate activists who have been regularly critical of the things she has said over the years, even debunking her methods and things she regularly says. She also appears to have been funded by the fossil fuel industry at some point. There have been others who I've seen quoted as being critical of the climate consensus and they tend to have a common thread among them where they have received funding from the fossil fuel industry at times in the post, or indeed still do. What becomes apparent is that there is a huge vested in interest in denying the impact of man and the fossil fuel industry on the climate... This is not to say that I disagree with everything that climate change deniers say... as an example, I think there can be a tendency to use provocative and emotional words, they can be quite dismissive of people who have genuine concerns or are sceptical about how we actually tackle the issues in a practical sense. Whilst I can share aspects of their concern, it doesn't detract from the core issue which is for me undeniable; i.e. that urgent and coordinated action is required as soon as possible in order to mitigate the effects of climate change. That for me means more investment in research and development of renewables and transition from fossil fuels, as well as a whole host of other schemes to change our relationship between consumption and the resources available on the planet. I get why that sits uneasily with conservative types who don't like the idea of government interference in their lives and choices. But my view is that we no longer have a choice as we will face ever increasing climate and weather related effects in the coming years which will become ever more challenging to manage.
    2 points
  5. If we're going to judge people on their known associates then Ian Blackford is a F*nian and Nicola Sturgeon is a sex pest.
    2 points
  6. Is the Lounge becoming chaotic ?
    2 points
  7. By far the most important aspect of Brexit for me is that there's now no barrier to further dislocation from the EU in future ... if that's what best suits the changing and unseeable circumstances going forward. I never believed there was a perfect solution from day one but anything had to be better that the eternal and inflexible lock-in that our membership previously guaranteed. I'm delighted to have got this far and I'm equally delighted to have the opportunity now to follow whatever path we choose over the years and decades to come, instead of being permanently engulfed in a flawed superstate. The voters of Britain have saved this country from our own parliament, for which they deserve all our thanks.
    2 points
  8. Come on BoJo, make the BBC self-funding. Give them five years to prepare, then bring the licence fee to an end and let the bastards find an audience that will pay for their bullshit.
    2 points
  9. The grabbing of the balls should be a four match suspension two matches per ball .
    1 point
  10. The whole episode is a cri de coeur by Christie : Bubbles needs Cuddles.
    1 point
  11. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/27/australian-firefighter-accused-arson-record-bush-fires-ultimate/ https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/police-contradict-claims-spread-online-exaggerating-arsons-role-in-australian-bushfires Excerpt from the Guardian article : Queensland police said between 10 September and 8 January there had been 1,068 reported bushfires in the state, of which 114 had been deliberately or maliciously lit through human involvement and have been subject to police enforcement action. Another excerpt : But a Rural Fire Service spokesman told Sky News on Wednesday that the majority of the larger fires in the state were caused by lightning, and that arson was a relatively small source of ignition. The second excerpt states that the major reason for them is lightning strikes - but also acknowledges that arson is a cause.
    1 point
  12. Go on then, I've not done one for a while. I'll take the Aberdeen match if no one else wants it.
    1 point
  13. To put things into a more reasonable context, these two articles are informative and take the issue beyond the "oh my God it's a climate emergency" stage. They seem to suggest that ignition temperatures vary for different forest fuels but require sustained temperatures of at least 260 degrees Celsius for dry grass to ignite. Since the hottest ambient temperature recorded in Australia in 2019 was 49.9 degree Celsius and the record temperature was only 50.6 degrees, recorded in 1960 would you believe, I think it's reasonable to conclude that climate isn't starting fires. Drier and hotter weather will make wildfire spread more vigorously and provide more dry fuel but it doesn't start fires. There are only two causes of bush fires in Australia - lightening and humans. Reported opinion is divided about the percentage of fires that are started by lightening. It is certainly higher in remote areas where human activity is minimal but is probably a minor factor in more populated areas. Thus, the least we can say with some certainty is that climate warming does NOT cause wildfires. Hotter, drier, windier weather DOES allow wildfires to spread more easily and makes them harder to control. We can also say with some confidence that wildfires in Australia (and elsewhere) are most commonly started by human activity and that a significant minority of these are deliberate fire setting. We can also say that current temperatures in Australia are not record high temperatures but the confluence of high temperatures, sustained drought and decisions to abandon the previous policy of routinely back burning undergrowth to reduce fuel levels have combined to cause the current crisis. https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/programs/fire/spark/html/74511201/74511201.html https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2017-01-1354/
    1 point
  14. Can anyone check on buster? I'm starting to worry about his reputation.
    1 point
  15. Just because Buster is a little fast and loose with his language (he's a big boy and can defend himself on that front), it doesn't decry from the wider points that he seemed to be alluding to. IPCC position is supported by the vast majority of major scientific bodies and a whole host of other governments who signed up to the Paris agreement, for a start. Are they wrong too? In any case, I don't think we are necesarily arguing against each other here. I have heard about Epstein's book and found some of his explanations quite compelling. It makes for some interesting counterpoints
    1 point
  16. I might be wrong but doesn't Glasgow city council operate some kind of a four day week
    1 point
  17. If you take her hair off she looks like Tony Blair.
    1 point
  18. To be fair, he is 39 years old and a very wealthy man who doesn't need the work - in 30 years time he will be 69 - wouldn't you rather be retired and enjoying life at that point ? I know I would and I don't even have the money to be able to..... but with his wealth I reckon I would already have just retired
    1 point
  19. If Scottish Labour jump into bed with the SNP, I expect the Conservatives will see a vote share increase in Scotland.
    1 point
  20. That's a bit of a leap From people saying "the climate is changing, and nobody has said otherwise" to "no-one is denying it is a major problem". In fact, I would say that is a quantum leap. There is a vast difference, potentially, between the climate changing and it being a major problem. Talk about putting words in people's mouths.
    1 point
  21. 1 point
  22. Don't care either way, but understand why they might want to make such a decision. The spotlight and intrusion in their lives is massive, and Harry will have the scars forever in terms of how things were for his mother. The curious thing is why it was announced in the way it was, but I guess if they are minded to make their own decision and avoid interference, it would make sense.
    1 point
  23. Hardly a sweeping assessment is it? He is after all, someone who was a close friend with a convicted paedophile/criminal and was seen in his company on many occasions despite being aware of his convictions.
    1 point
  24. Quite a sweeping assessment of someone I presume you have never ever met in person or know nothing about beyond the drivel printed in headline chasing newspapers . Or is it OK for you to make judgements and not others, or are you just a hypocrite?
    1 point
  25. You can get it on most podcast platforms. (Now added embedded player above)
    1 point
  26. Quick comment. @craig I have no problem with what are playful jibes coming back over the net, besides, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Of late, it's mostly just a play on words, (cutting) satire/an attempt at humour, rather than downright nastiness. I am not offended !
    1 point
  27. No wonder the Queen is still on the throne she has an oldest son who had the most outrageous arranged marriage in order that he got heirs and luckily enough was presented with two sons.Her next son kept company with undesirables as shown by recent headlines.The third son is a nonentity and her daughter at least seems a good embassador. If it were not for the tourism this family attract with associated revenue it brings I would not shed any tears at the abolition of the monarchy.
    1 point
  28. Still no sign of what this mysterious “science” is or how it demonstrates what “urgent action” is “indicated”.
    1 point
  29. You mean like just lie you, Corbyn, The Labour Party and anti-semitism?
    1 point
  30. Yeah, I quite enjoyed it. I was somewhat -- concerned is the wrong word -- struck, when he suggested he doesn't see himself being a manager for the next 30 years. It seems like it's a ladder for him; whereby the Manager's job at Liverpool is the endgame. It's like everything is geared towards that goal; not necessarily to 'be' a manager, like these managers that go from job to job. (I can't quite describe it.) He's obviously very driven, and that endgame suits us anyway; if he gets there, it means he's been a success with us. I saw him on Gary Neville's Soccerbox (?). I was really impressed with his desire to learn; I lost count of the number of times he questions why things were done in-game by his managers in the past, and in games he watches now. In the above podcast he mentions asking Klopp why he does certain things. He's an impressive man.
    1 point
  31. 'Cream' is somewhat subjective but my idea of it is exceptional youth players. If we look at the last 30 years, I'd point to three Barry Ferguson (B), John Fleck and Billy Gilmour. What bigger clubs are doing now is just hoovering up 16 year old talented footballers at cream and cream minus levels. Further down the food chain, we look to hoover up at a lower level BUT as you say it's down to the acquiring club to improve them. Now if we are becoming more professional then good BUT as I said before,...then comes the pressures of consistently winning on managers who are expected to provide a pathway.
    1 point
  32. Over decades, our hit-rate has been rank awful at improving players of all ages. Generally, our record on injuries has been rank awful as well. I go back to the marked improvement in levels of professionalism that SG&Co brought with them. What went before 2015 was various states of poor to awful that at times was masked by chucking money at problems, ...which in turn eventually came home to bite.
    1 point
  33. You've actually picked a great example to illustrate what the major obstacle is between 15/16 and the first team. Michael Stewart may have been technically very good, but I see hundreds of kids who are technically excellent at 15/16/17. The ones who make it have the right attitude, but that's missing in most of the youths I see. Stewart has subsequently proven he's got a massive chip on his shoulder, coupled with a sense of entitlement. I think that poor attitude is typical of players who are big fish in small ponds at youth level, and therefore fail to make the next step. I have watched boys from age 5/6 develop into some of the most skilful players I've ever seen, but you can see the poor attitude evolve and eventually kill any prospect of a footballing career. I've no idea how to maintain that hunger and desire to keep improving, but thankfully we have a gaffer who has done it so maybe he can help them. If he can't, I don't know who can. Clubs get the blame for not developing the players, but these days most clubs follow the same pathways development programme so in my opinion it's 90% down to the attitude of the player. When our first team stops training, Tav, Barisic, Kent (in particular), Jack, Morelos, Defoe (even eve days) are all staying behind to work on things themselves. When the youth training stops, very few stay behind to work on anything. That tells me a lot.
    1 point
  34. I think we will see this more in 1-2 years. The best of our young players are a bit younger and not quite there yet. Another variable this season is that goal difference is looking important so if we are 3-0 up the foot can't come off the gas.
    1 point
  35. Lennon is in the papers this morning, demanding the SFA admit they are wrong on the Ryan Christie citing and prosecution, and apologise. Three interviews over three nights and no one uttered the above on BBC Scotland camera. PQ have sent a Journo and camera crew out to Dubai for the second year running to almost exclusively report on matters Sellik, and they don't get an exasperated Lennon demanding an admission of wrong doing, and an apology. Seriously, where do the Gang Hut go from here, allocating more public monies to continue ra Sellik propaganda for no juicy tit bits: or do they withdraw the rota of Gang Hutters willing to wash both Neil and Peters cars? We should be told?
    1 point
  36. I’d say he’s quite a bit more than ‘a very good signing ‘. ?
    1 point
  37. Declaring Joshi and Adams wrong by definition, is an unconvincing argument.
    1 point
  38. Something else is out of control in Australia: climate disaster denialism Ketan Joshi Myths about the bushfires grow online before finding their way into the rightwing press and the mouths of politicians @KetanJ0 Wed 8 Jan 2020 11.45 GMTLast modified on Wed 8 Jan 2020 11.54 GMT https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/08/australia-climate-disaster-denial-bushfires-online-rightwing-press-politicians ‘The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, teeters at the edge of climate disaster denialism, using coded digs that suggest there is nothing unusual about what’s going on.’ The impacts of the climate crisis are now clearly manifesting in ways beyond rising temperatures. In Australia, the conditions for severe bushfires are occurring far more regularly (hot days, dry land and high winds). And the country is now suffering its most intense bushfire season ever. The quantity of land burnt, the smoke pollution impacts, the temperatures and number of homes lost are all breaking historical records. At the same time, Australia is pioneering the denial of climate disaster. There is some interesting research around denialism. Researchers have essentially discovered a strong political divide when it comes to climate science: progressives are much more likely to accept it as fact than conservatives. And presenting climate deniers with scientific information in the hope that they’ll change their minds actually reinforces their rejection, because they are so taken aback by the information. This phenomenon affects solutions, too. If a policy proposal to reduce emissions conflicts with someone’s pre-existing beliefs – if it requires more government intervention in markets, for example – they tend to deny that the problem exists in the first place. Over the course of the past decade, Australia was a laboratory for this type of thinking. Research has shown that “climate scepticism gets substantial favourable exposure in mainstream Australian media”. As a result, Ipsos polling finds that Australia lags behind other nations in “acknowledging the threat of climate change”. And a renewable energy target of 42% – proposed in a landmark report by Australia’s chief scientist – was rejected by the conservative government partly because the number sounded too close to the opposition’s 50%. Rightwing media outlets in Australia have responded to the current bushfires by either refusing to give the story its due prominence or by spreading falsehoods. Specifically, there is a claim emerging that environmentalists have blocked hazard reduction efforts by supposedly opposing dry fuel loads being burned or manually removed. It isn’t one of those half-truths – there’s no truth in it at all. Once spread by a rightwing journalist over 10 years ago, it has been given a new lease of life as a meme on social media. There is a trajectory for memes like this: the idea emerges in the fever swamps of denialist groups, it slowly seeps into fringe blogs, and from those blogs into Australia’s rightwing media. Then fringe political players take it up, and it’s consequently absorbed by leaders from major parties. There is precedent for this phenomenon. In 2018, a fake Starbucks campaign supposedly offering free coffee to people of colour in the US was orchestrated on the 4chan message board; it was then featured on Fox News. There is already evidence emerging of 4chan boards trying to spread misinformation that fires are being started by Muslim terrorists. The latest story doing the rounds is that the fires have been caused by arsonists or even climate activists – and it has been particularly potent. It is currently somewhere between the blogs and the rightwing media; I imagine that it’ll be in the papers – and on the lips of politicians – shortly. In the comments of Sky News Australia tweets, the meme already dominates. The account of Gwyneth Montenegro, a “personal empowerment” influencer, tweeted to her 94k followers “climate terrorism, perhaps?”, which received thousands of retweets before being deleted. A Channel 7 Australia tweet declared that “Police are now working on the premise arson is to blame for much of the devastation caused this bushfire season”, receiving hundreds of retweets despite the voiceover in the clip stating: “7 News has been told that early indications are the south coast fires were likely started by lightning.” It was retweeted by the BBC journalist Andrew Neil with the judgment: “appalling”. The Australian government MP Craig Kelly appeared on Good Morning Britain, insisting that the climate crisis is not to blame for the shocking intensity of the country-wide disaster. Denialism comes directly from other leading Australian politicians. In 2013, this was more explicit, as when Tony Abbott said “fire is part of the Australian experience”, while then-environment minister Greg Hunt used Wikipedia to dismiss the link between the climate crisis and bushfires. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, always teeters at the edges of this style of disaster denialism, using coded digs that suggest there is nothing unusual about what’s going on. “We have faced these disasters before” and “I know how distressing that [smoke haze] has been, particularly for young people who haven’t seen it before” both stand out as examples of Morrison’s strategy: disguise straightforward climate denialism with appeals to “common sense”, collective memory or the misguided passions of young activists. When he won the election in May 2019, Morrison declared it a victory for the “quiet Australians”. That may have been true, but there are far fewer quiet Australians left today, as hundreds of thousands have experienced the largest mass evacuation in the history of the country. Still, anecdotal dispatches from Christmas dinner tables outline the success of rightwing memes in denying that Australia’s disaster is in any way related to the climate crisis. Morrison seals the deal, offering a comforting alternate reality that satisfies the craving to deny anything related to the climate crisis, whether it’s the science, the solutions or the impacts. If it works, it’ll kick off another decade of sustained inaction in a country that has incredibly disproportionate influence on the world’s climate system. This time, we must nip it in the bud. • Ketan Joshi is an Australian energy and climate science communicator
    1 point
  39. Agreed - and thanks for not C&Ping the sub-based stuff... Feel free to add the link though.
    1 point
  40. A 7 letter word that begins with an S and ends in an M.
    1 point
  41. Their take on indyref2 will be interesting. You had McDonnell and Corbyn flip-flopping every time they opened their mouths in the lead up to the election.
    1 point
  42. The inevitable collapse or semi-collapse of the EU should be a concern for us. We do too much trade with Europe not to be concerned My own view is that there now are too many countries in it, is too difficult to control & is unsustainable long term. Of the 28 countries in it only about 6 or 7 are net contributors. The Euro was a horrendous mistake when it allowed countries to join who shouldn’t have been allowed to join
    1 point
  43. The Irishman...after all the hype surrounding it, i was expecting a lot more from this , it was decent ,but the whole ageing thing was making me have to work a bit harder, and in places ,spoilt the flow of the film . Tipped to do well at the oscars, but bear in mind that out of two other Scorcese films featuring Pesci and De Niro ,'Goodfellas' and 'Casino' ,both of which are superior to the Irishman ,only Goodfellas got an Oscar for Pesci in supporting role. Casino was up against Braveheart in 96' though, a film which imo should also have been included in the nominations for best documentary .
    1 point
  44. Jumanji 2 - possibly the biggest pile of shit I've ever endured in the cinema (sole redeeming feature being Karen Gillan's torso) paid £4.99 for 2 of us and I've a good mind to sue for it's return. Le Mans '66 - decent enough film surrounding the story and politics of Ford's first Le Mans victory.
    1 point
  45. My opinion of Kamara is he can only get better therefore more valuable.
    1 point


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.