Thinker

They'll be frantically checking the oppostition team sheet for ineligible players as we speak!

... and the wet pitch. I know I'm probably being especially uncharitable, but in normal conditions the pace on that pass would have seen it run straight through to Greegs. I suppose I should give Allan the benefit of the doubt and assume he anticipated that the surface water would slow the ball. But I don't like Allan, so I'm going to put it down to luck.

He put in an excellent preformance against Cardiff at the weekend. Set one up, won a penalty (then missed it, admittedly) and scored a beauty.

They've also had some shockers. They had a good run in the 2016/17 Europa league, but last year they were knocked out by Dudelange (Lux) and, the year before, Sherriff Tiraspol (Moldova).

I suppose the thing to do is imagine the remark was made about a politician you don't like. If it was would you still be outraged, or would you be rolling your eyes at those who were? Imho, comedy should be able to tread close to taboo areas, but there ought to be more to it than malice. I suppose that's the overly-polarised world we live in these days - folks can't just disagree with the other side of a political debate, they have to really fucking hate them. Brand's showboating in a not particularly witty way. I don't think it should be censored, but it's depressing to think she'd get much of a laugh for that.

Beautiful.

You're right. I do have a preconceived notion of what I want climate change studies to show. I desperately want them to prove that it's unelated to human activity and that there's no negative consequence to having a cosy house, regularly flying to sunny climes for my holidays, having steak twice a week, etc. Sadly, I'm unable to dismiss the strong evidence to the contrary. You can: that's fine. You are perfectly entitled to hold that view. I'm perfectly entitled to point out its shortcomings.

No, I questioned it because you hold a different view from 97% of people who've studied the matter much more closely than you have. Let's imagine you presented a newspaper article that showed 97% of economists think that Scotland would be less prosperous if it became independent. If I was to counter by saying that, in spite of that, I had decided, in my capacity as not-an-economist, to believe that Scotland would be more prosperous if independent, would you commend me for my open-mindedness? I think you might suspect that I had a preconceived notion of what I wanted to be true that was clouding my judgement.

You're being a tad melodramatic here. I'm not demanding you change your opinion or suggesting that you should be punished for your point of view. All I'm saying is that the train of thought you've followed to reach your conclusion on this matter isn't very scientific or rational. You are, of course, completely free to be as unscientific and irrational as you wish. In fact, you stand with the majority of the world's population if you do.

I think you've read something into the word "motive" that I didn't mean. Let's use a different word: rationale. What's your rationale for choosing to disregard the opinion of 97% of scientists, on a scientific question, when you yourself aren't a scientist? I assume you wouldn't typically (as a matter of course in your daily life) adopt such a sceptical stance when presented with a strongly supported expert opinion. Why have you chosen to do so in this instance? Are you being a contrarion? A conspiracy theorist? Or is it that you find the implications unpleasant and scepticism more comfortable? Whatever it is, I suggest you're being irrational. I see r_s has provided an excellent illustration of what I'm driving at: He's admitting that his reluctance to accept the diagnosis is heavily coloured by his distaste for what is being widely touted as the remedy (and the people who are touting it). Forget the question of "What should we do about this?" Isolate and focus on "What's happening?" Ignore the activism, examine the science. Is human activity responsible for global warming? Beyond any reasonable doubt, scientific study of the matter tells us that: yes, it is. You don't have to do anything with that information, but that's how it is.

Nope. As I said, the evidence doesn't support climate change beyond all doubt. But what motive could you possibly have for choosing to disregard the opinion of 97% of scientists, on a scientific question, when you yourself aren't a scientist - other than a desire for the unpleasant implications of what they're saying not to be true?

The evidence does support climate change beyond any reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt, clearly - but then, you're under no obligation to be reasonable.

Do you have an open mind? It seems like you're pretty determined to ignore the balance of probabilities (and to do so from a position of limited expertise).

Yada yada yada indeed. If the point you're trying to make is that scientists occasionally get it wrong; well, yes they do - but rarely do ninety-odd % of them buy into the wrong theory at the same time. Obviously, it's entirely your prerogative to ignore the opinions of those most competent and qualified to assess the situation, but I'd suggest you'd have to have a deeply ingrained preconceived bias in order to do so. I mean, I wish the link between human activity and climate change was a hoax too but I'm not prepared (or able) to fly in the face of such strong scientific consensus in order to cling to that POV. Clearly climate change denial is the what's akin to being a flat earther here. (And, as I'm pretty sure you must be aware: The best religious minds in the world once burned scientists at the stake for having the temerity to claim the world was round.)

Well, that's true, but it's not really relevent to our current predicament - the heating and cooling you're speaking of happens over a timescale that's of no immediate concern to us. The strong scientific consensus is that the increase in global average temperature that is currently being precipitated by human activity will have a serious negative impact on human civilization in the next few generations. How we (or whether we can) tackle it is another issue.