greg_hill

I had a dream that people stopped posting pointless and/or annoying threads. Hey, we can all dream, right?

Phil, what worries me is that they seem to be lying and spinning their way around every punishment. They sweet talked their way out of court the first time, submitted the 'dysfunctional accounts' and then put themselves in admin. They named an unregistered player in the squad against us that the FA bottled out of punishing them for. They found a piece of paper to get around this blatant conflict of interests in choice of administrator and now it looks like they may even get around the points deduction. If we look at the solid punishments they received so far, it adds up to a temporary transfer embargo that allowed loans and *part* of a transfer fee being withheld for a club trading while insolvent. If they are killed off, they can't do this anymore, if they are 'left to suffer' there's always a chance that someone like Victor Bout will leave prison here in Thailand, sail through the FA FPP test and buy them back to success. The cheats will win.

I don't want to be alarmist but please do be very careful. There is a lot of tension in Bangkok and there are military checkpoints around Sukhumvit especially. A large supply of ammunition was 'stolen' from a Thai army base a couple of weeks ago which has added to the paranoia. Do be careful if you are going near Democracy Monument (near Khao San Rd), Victory Monument, Siam Paragon or Rajdomeoen (the Thai Boxing stadium). I'm sure you'll have a great holiday but just ask ahead before you go anywhere. I'm afraid I've no idea what KES is :-) A school? For any Thailand first timers, do not take a taxi that refuses to use the meter or tells you it's broken. Don't believe anyone who tells you the grand palace is closed and suggests another venue, don't go with any taxi drivers who give you a ridiculously cheap quote to go somewhere (they will take you a tailor or go go bar first and get commission) and unless you enjoy offending the locals, don't kiss in public. I second Dubai Phil's suggestion for a good tour, though IMHO it would take a bit longer to see those sites properly.

One last thing - you didn't say when you arrive. There is a massive protest in Bangkok this weekend - all football matches are cancelled and martial law is in place - so you do not want to be arriving in the next 4 - 7 days. See bangkokpost.com or nationmultimedia.com or just drop me a line for any more details,

He said Koh Samet, which is different to Koh Samui. Samet is nicer.

If you are staying in those areas you'll be fine. Only if you are going trekking in Khao Yai or near the borders do you really need to get your malaria meds or anything else. If I can be of any help just drop me a line. Greg

I agree with you that it's an important topic we must consider. However it's not at all clear cut and there exists little evidence that increased co2 levels will cause unprecedented acidification or cause real damage. There exists some tenuous evidence (observation of certain aquatic life near volcanic areas, etc.) that suggests certain species will be less healthy, but will continue to reproduce. However, even then we are talking about 200-300 years into the future under the assumption we will continue to pump out co2 all that time. These articles may be of interest: http://co2science.org/subject/o/oceanacidification.php

I don't usually respond to links without comments as I find it to be a bit lazy and arrogant, but I'll take this opportunity to point out that the Met Office failed to predict last year's snow, predicted this year would be the hottest ever and predicted last summer would be a 'barbecue summer'. Their failure was so monumental that the BBC have considered dropping them and the large bonuses awarded tot heir directors caused an uproar. Do we now trust them to be so authoritative about climate change If you read that report, it is bizarre. "The study, which looks at research published since the IPCC's report, has found that changes in Arctic sea ice, atmospheric moisture, saltiness of parts of the Atlantic Ocean and temperature changes in the Antarctic are consistent with human influence on our climate" What is consistent? How are they measuring "human influence"? How are they ensuring that these changes are not independent of "human influence"? What are the changes? What is the evidence that these changes are definitely caused by human activity? It raises more questions than answers.

Yep BBC website was the same. I assume they actually had someone attending this match, how did they mistake a black person in red and white for the Tranmere goalscorer?

Well I guess everyone is entitles to their own opinions but I think it's unfair to imply (with the speech marks) that ex-pats are not fans, simply because they are ex-pats. I've worn my Saints shirt with pride in many Asian countries and will continue to do so. And believe me, staying up into the small hours to listen to Jimmy Case or DM, or updating the BBC scores web page every two minutes is not for the faint of heart!

Sorry, none of the other JPT games have been shown here and I'd be very surprised if this one is. The only game on cable so far this season was the Pompey game.

If we don't manage to go up this year than perhaps Jaidi will decide he can last for one more season. That could be our silver lining.

Thanks Saintfully, It's good that we can debate, disagree and do so with a bit of humour. The world would be a better place if more people could do this!

I'll make it as total and utter BS that really you should not have even bothered posting and I wonder why you did so. I hope it's not repeated.

Dear Saintfully, Putting aside the redundant sarcasm, I would point out that this thread appears to be a debate. In a debate, there are usually people with opposing views and therefore I find it strange you would present your own view about temperature trends as a given. Still, you've backtracked twice on that now. 1) Yes, though your time scales seem rather idiosyncratic so can you clarify what you class as a "very long time"? 2) Yes, more or less. 3) In theory yes, however herein lies a huge flaw in the argument of alarmists. The troposphere is not showing any sign of the heating that should be expected by increased radiative forcing. If the effect were taking place as theory would have us believe, the hot spots would be easy to find. They aren't there. The IPCC are aware of this, so they simply refuse to discuss it. Others have found the occasional hot point and presented this as proof, but n reality, evidence of increased radiative forcing is simply absent. 4) Come on, this is a terrible argument. You even contradict yourself by suggesting that an increase in radiative forcing, despite the fact it has always happened, is a new system. In the very next sentence you point out, correctly, that climate is a complex beast and we don't yet fully understand its works. Can you explain why an increase of one known aspect of a mechanism we don't fully understand can be classed as a 'new system'? 5) Please can you clarify which geological school of thought puts 6-600 years in the "rapid" bracket? Any credible website or book would do. I am not nuanced in Geology. 6) Of course it will. given that virtually every treaty presented at climate conferences involves some kind of tapping, how do you believe that developing nations could run their energy? Alternative energy is impractical and expensive for us, so how can we expect, say, a village family in western Africa to use it? Your line "Instead, I think an engagement with environmental issues coupled with a recognition that the earths resources are finite and currently not being used in a sustainable way," is a non-sequitar and an appeal to sympathy. Nobody wants to waste resources, nobody is against environmentalism. But to equate this to wasting billions of ponds and a whole lot of co2 on pointless meetings and summit on something totally unsupported by genuine science is just foolish. Those billions would be of far greater benefit if they were used to stop waste tipping, deforestation and poaching, for example. MMGW does not need to be shown to be false. The onus of proof is on the alarmists. Oh and I'm not sure where you got your information about snowfall in Vancouver from, they were a centimetre short of an all time record last December: http://www.vancouversun.com/Lots+snow+record+December/1132232/story.html It's only in the last three or four weeks it dried up, so unless Global Warming only kicked in this year, I'd say it's just a little bad luck.

I also think people underestimate how much of a drawback is was to have virtually no pre-season preparation time for Pards. Just because pre-season is now long gone doesn't mean the effects fade away. Some of them do (fitness, or lack of it) but other aspects don't, or at least become more difficult to handle and amend (transfers, stadium work, tactical training, etc). Pards has had to come in and, basically, perform all the pre-season tasks while the season was underway. He handled that well, he has taken the squad from a demoralised, weak set of players to a team that just hammered the ninth place team and beat the top team away from home. Sure there have been a few slip ups, what the heck did we expect? A ten-nil win every week just because we've finally got some cash in the bank? I've said this before but I think it's worth repeating: The internet gives people anonymity and some people - usually idiots - abuse that. This forum now represents a large portion of Southampton supporters. Anything appearing on here could well be read by people within the club. I wish people would consider their words and how it would affect others who may read them. Speak your mind by all means, but just put a little thought and consideration into it.

Great job Alan, keep up the good work!

No. But I am in danger of punching my screen if I have to read another ridiculously titled thread.

What is it that makes you think they've turned a corner? They have gone into admin, have millions upon millions to settle for, will face massive cuts,will probably be exposed for "irregularities" and face almost certain relegation. A reduced TV cash package is not exactly a ray of sunshine in these circumstances!

This. Except I agree with his views, too.

Yes but I think his main question was - if Pompey manage to get themselves releegated without the help of a points deduction, will it carry over to next season as it did for us? I'd like to know, too.

I still have a strong belief that this is all talk, designed to try and intimidate the courts into letting them off the hook, for fear that all the fans will scream 'We were about to be taken over".

I'm really struggling to follow your syllogies here. Your first point was: 'Oh, and past temperature trends should not be taken as indicative of future temperature trends. " which you have now backtracked and deemed to be incomplete, and it was: "......if anthropogenic global warming is real'. "Since man-made global warming would effectively create a new system," I'm sorry I don't follow. What new system is this? What is the scientific basis upon which stochasticity would be increased? "I would say that the MWP is evidence that climate is capable of quite rapid change" Given that the MWP lasted 400 - 600 years and we are now talking about a period of about thirty years, and you then lock on to my point about six years, how are you defining 'rapid' and what is the relevancy of it? "I think that a disruption to climate equilibrium is likely to give rise to unpredictable outcomes - some of which may be rapid. Thus, making an assumption that a 6 yr fall in temps is best interpreted now as indicating that man-made global warming is a fallacy might be a little naive/foolish. The trend could be reversed quite radically in the next 6 years." Again, you're giving us lots of ideas but I see no logic or science behind any of them. Are you saying that the increase in co2 emissions which have, allegedly, increased radiative forcing in the troposhere have allowed us to witness the greatest snowfall in years? Why do you think this is? Why do you think the IPCC predicted net temperature increases over the previous six years? Why do you think the Met Office told us this year would be the hottest on record? I think perhaps everybody would benefit more if you could actually take some time to clarify some of your syllogisms. "As has been said many times before, precautionary principle should prevail. " Even if that precautionary principle costs billions upon billions, wrecks industry, increases poverty and sickness in the third world and becomes more and more patently false over time?

I'm surprised that so many people seem to take Storrie's talk of strong investor interest at face value. He's lied and spun his way through this whole mess. Often he just simply denied what was in front of him (remember the denial of receiving a WUO?) and all he has to offer this time is talk of 'an email and a phone call' . All this at the most convenient, yet illogical, time - when the clock had run out and they needed to buy more time. And on that note I want to ask - how do we know the SOA will be honest? I know a court appointed form is producing it but where do they get their info from?

Obviously it would depend on the severity of the effect. Given that temperatures have shown a net drop over the last six years when co2 emissions have peaked, this would indicate the effect is weak if present at all, which is what I believe in any case. Please show where I have used past temperature trends as indicative of future temperature trends.