Polaroid Saint

Good stuff. Needs a little proof-reading for repeated words (I'm being a bit picky), but really nicely done.

Oh please no! ? ? ?

This would be an excellent way to end this thread. Nice one Kingsbridge, well said.

It's almost like he wrote the entire thing himself!

Well. I think she is quite cute. I fancy her more than Nicola, and I made no secret of my man-crush on him.

I can't stop smiling. Not because I am happy... ...It is one of those 'WTF! You Couldn't Make It Up. Life's ****ing Riot Ain't it? Pfft! Waaah? Oh well, what's the point, its a ride innit? Gotta love the craziness" kind of smiles. Genuinely gutted the Don has gone, but wide-eyed to see what nonsense/amazement my club will throw at me next! Saints Eh?!?!

I think Rosling only repeats those phrases in an effort to highlight the idiocy of those who coined them? I may be wrong, would need to double check the context. He is certainly not an advocate of such things himself.

Yes I believe this explosion of growth is happening NOW in Africa, but has happened and the rate of growth (not growth itself) is already dropping in the rest of the developing world, as Education and access to Health Care (birth control) spreads across the populations. The introduction of birth control is a cultural and educational as well as medical thing - and you understandably mention Catholicism, although recent progression is being made on that by the Vatican itself and, well, people do ignore such things when education allows: for instance, I believe Europe was also mostly Catholic during the centuries of mass population boom! I must admit I am getting most of my 'knowledge' on this subject from just a couple of lectures and essays by the marvellous Hans Rosling. He puts things in such a clear and positive way it is a bit daft me trying to paraphrase! I done a quick web search and here is a neat article that introduces the man and his work: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10431350/Hans-Rosling-the-man-who-makes-statistics-sing.html And I believe his latest lecture on Population Growth is still available on BBC iPlayer. I cannot recommend higher, it's brilliant and slightly humbling.

This is great. Exactly the sort of intelligent response I was after from GM. And look, Badger has made their point without needing to cut n paste some 'facts' (read opinion piece) from t'internet. It is possible that the 'Third World's' rapid transition to matching, and soon exceeding, 'First World' resource demand, might, eventually, be a benefit to solving global climate issues. In that they may be forced to explore other energy production means, perhaps more suited to their resources. This will promote innovation and drive down costs. Africa will be key and as its population levels out and begins to demand better services and facilities, a 'western' existence if you like, the demand for resources WILL rise. I believe (maybe 'hope' is better) that the technology and resources available to many Africa nations as they 'mature' will allow them to avoid a carbon fuel based economy (okay, I am talking mostly solar, I admit it, damn!). But also communications and welfare and education are improving across the continent. Health care is so so important: As soon it is not necessary to have five children just in case two die and one cannot work, people start only having two children. It happened in Europe, is happening now on the sub-continent and will happen in Africa. Populations DO reach stable points, right up until the next great upheaval of course! Talking of upheavals: I think it is absolutely right to worry about short term population increases (next twenty years or so) as the infrastructure isn't in place (as you say food or even water) and we are still set up, as a society and a species, to devour and consume whatever we can for short term gain. Hence Packham's (and billions of other people's) concern for the other inhabitants and habitats of this planet. Our little island led the Industrial Revolution as we have coal and iron and the right men at the right time, and that's a fact. Who's to say (given probability, not just blind faith) that the next great leap forward isn't coming from a need, a necessity, facing the growing African population? Some of the best solar tech is coming out of China, some of the most innovate electrical storage tech is being developed in India, some for the best medical tech is happening in South America. These are global solutions to common problems. Why can't population boom lead to innovation, after all it always has done in the past!?

Awww, issy wissy GMy Wemmy finding the concepts too hard to grasp? Ooh diddums, does Polaroid need to speak slower? Did poor GMy not get a good education when he was little? Or was it no friends growing up that has made poor GMy Wemmy so antisocial? Does GMy Wemmy need help with understanding conversational English? Has little GMy Wemmy not spoken to an intelligent adult before? Maybe his 'targets' are always 'lesser' than him? Bless him. Is GMy running out of diatribes and resorting to name calling again? Awh, poor little fella needs some TLC maybe? GMy Wemmy got so far out of his depth that he couldn't see the argument Polaroid was making!? Is that better GM, can you understand the above? I tried to use words you might understand and a child-like voice to make it even easier for you.

I wonder what it is you find so strange about my posts? Is it that I don't try to point score and instead have attempted to engage you in the argument? Is that I don't conform to your antiquated and antagonistic view of the world? Is that I have pointed out your mistakes calmly and clearly in a way you find impossible to argue with? What exactly is it? Would you rather I took your method of insulting other posters and trotting out the same biased old non-stories every time (whilst simultaneously chastising others for doing the same)? I have been pretty consistent too - maybe you find it hard to follow posts that don't jump randomly around or clutch at straws like yours do? (For example; you brought up China's One Child Policy - why? It has nothing to do with the OP, and you are clearly unfamiliar with it's history). I have given you plenty of chances to either put down the shovel and climb out of that hole, or else hit me (metaphorically) over the head with the same shovel! Yet you seem, unwillingly, or incapable, of doing either. Shame as the conversation about Climate Change is an important one and we *could* all learn a lot from debating our ideas and challenging each others preconceptions.

So you think China's One Child Policy stems entirely from a conversation over a beer with a Dutch Statistician in 1978? Really? Honestly? Think about that in the context of Chinese history. It does make you look rather foolish. You also assume that I read the Guardian and then call it a 'rag'. This betrays a lack of an open attitude or approach to researching this or any other argument. Which is a real shame as I can see there is wit and intelligence in there somewhere, if only you weren't so desperate to prove a point (any point!). In response to that particular article and the efforts of the PopOffset scheme you may be surprised (but please don't let it depolarise your world view!) that I too think it is an Obscene idea. I think 'obscene' is the right word for the policy being discussed in the article. However, please note it is Population Matters that are promoting this, not the Guardian... ...as, if you had 'read the article online or in print,' would be clear. 'Educate yourself, on me;' "But other thinkers, such as the Guardian columnist George Monbiot, say global population increase pales into insignificance when compared with the effect of increased consumption and economic growth."

China's Policy was NOT the result of "computer modeling'. That is, simply put, a lie. (I don't like liars, no matter how 'funny' or 'clever' they think they are being. Lying hurts people; maybe not straight away but somewhere down the line.) Let's be fair and say you are just repeating someone else's mistaken inference. Either way GM, you may do well to heed the advice that; it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

I despair I really do. I post a reasoned and considered comment. Over long and boring, admittedly, but full of stuff to rip apart or nod sagely too. Either way! One normally reliable poster (GM) keeps on posting what I can only assume are efforts to provide some sort 'balance' (because without the other comments they would just seem unhinged) I guess the anarchic side coming through!? And then this lazy ****wit of a link gets posted. Sergei - you have successfully 'trolled' me on this one, well done! Unless you really believe that link, in which case I feel sorry for you and your feeble little mind. I suspect you have trouble eating etc. So I'll be kind and not be rude to the less fortunate anymore. Again, I am using a mobile device so can't immediately tell what forum I am on. Must be the Muppet Show. Without the jokes.

1850-1870 Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million). Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C. 2012 Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 394 ppm. Mean global temperature is 14.6°C. This GRADUAL INCREASE in global temperature has happened at a time when the planet should be DECREASING in temperature due to various natural occurrences, primarily oceanic oscillation, polar wander, tectonic shift and decreased solar activity (current {11 year} solar cycle 24 is the least active on record and cycle 25 is predicted to be worse, the 200 year solar cycle is the least active {ergo coolest} since the Little Ice Age). All the readings (not 'evidence' or 'stats', just plan old readings off of instruments n that) show that every time the earth has come out of an ice age, CO2 goes up (well, duh!), rapidly self propelling more CO2 until a gradual decline to a new ice age. We SHOULD be entering a period of cooling, and if you wish to support the 'all natural causes' argument, this is very odd, as it appears we are not cooling. So what's stopping, or at least tempering, the expected cool down? What has changed on Earth in the last 11 thousand years that might buck the global trend of some 56 million years? Could human civilisation be an influence? It's not just CO2 of course. Other Green House Gases are rather vital to the whole thing. Methane from livestock for example. There are some very controversial theories, although recently supported by some excellent research from the University of Bristol, that Mankind has been influencing (dare I say 'changing'?) the global climate for millennia. The correlation between humans starting to clear land, plant paddy fields, developing irrigation and turning to agriculture (between 8000 and 5800BC) to the jump in CO2 and Methane recorded from 8000 years ago, is certainly worth exploring further. Are those green house gas/CO2/temperature levels casual or causal? That's a fair area of debate, as historical records of civilisation are not as accurate as scientific measurements; although anyone who knows the rough dates of the growth of human civilisation, the industrial revolution and things like natural methane expulsion and the normal time-span of the global carbon cycle would be wise to at least consider a causal relationship. Global Warming is a funny old term as it confuses many normal people, so I prefer Climate Change. You can then at least try explain how heating up the central surface diameter of a sphere which has fluids around it can cause other areas on the surface to flow colder while others flow hotter. Basic convection science. Then again I think I might have just lost any of you who have bothered to read this far. Let's just say; its weather innit? Humans have burnt fossil fuelsand radically altered the biodiversity of the planet steadily for 30 thousand years and have now started to do so rapidly. In addition, in a convergent trend, the earth's climate cycle does most assuredly, appear to have altered and a shift away from the old ice age cycle is developing. And, really, whether or not you choose to differentiate between 'man made' or 'natural' matters not one jot. (Personally, logically, I see humanity as PART of the natural history of this planet, who can it not be?): it IS happening. Now, let's just agree on that and start building cities under the sea, giant domes to live under and massive solar thermal arrays in the desert, yeah?

There is NO way Anfield would get the Kop back. As a club they are 100% behind keeping seating. If Safe Standing is allowed many clubs will go for a small section as a test, but Liverpool will not. They have already stated such. Personally I think it could and should be brought in and could, if managed correctly, provide both an atmospheric and financial boast.

I, for one, cannot control my excitement at the thought of some sort of Asparagus Away Kit. Or perhaps highly detailed workings of an Eterna watch for the silver grey third kit?

I suspect most of you had already read this, it being from Practical Fish Keeping magazine n all, but it seemed like an important thing to pass on, just in case. http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=6034

Written in plain English, with easy to follow maths, this is a must read for anyone really interested in looking at the present and future of energy supply and demand. A stunning piece of work that really 'cuts the cr@p.' http://www.withouthotair.com

Bundles of fun! Thank you for pointing out that my ignorance is bliss. Perhaps, as I am corporate whore and didn't actually have to worry about being told to sit down or sweat through my jeans and £50 replica shirt which I hate, I was able to enjoy the sight and sound of my fellow Saints, at least little more than worrying about the uptake of our tickets? Bless you and, either way, I thought you sang beautifully.

Excellent. That's the kind of positivity and eloquence that keeps me coming back to this forum.

One of the best unplanned and fractured train journeys ever! Took three times longer than it should and was five times as fun - Back via Manchester with unscheduled stops in Birmingham, Oxford and Reading with plenty of neutrals (and Mancs) giving 'props' and 'nuf respect' to the Saints! Do we, now, have the best away support in the Premiership? I think so.

In need of first team football - with Evra in front of him, plus the Brazilian twins. Shaw would be first choice still here. I rate Buttner though, Solid and strong, doesn't get caught by the ball over the top (as so many attacking 'wing backs' do these days) plus he has weighed in with a couple cracking goals he has scored in his few appearances too. If Shaw was injured, he would be a great back up, but there is no point loaning out players to warm other teams benches alas. I reckon Fox will be fine as cover this season - he had a marish season last year and dont we all know it. I still dont think that was due entirely to him being sh!te either, just one of those cr&ppy seasons where if anything could go wrong, it went wrong with Fox in the middle of it. I suspect he is a better footballer this year and (hope) that he has learnt from any mistakes and (PRAY) that he has shuck off the jinx of last year. with the Clyne to the left/Chambers on the right/Corky 'He plays anywhere' and Maya able to cover FB too, I reckon we will be okay in this position. If Shaw plays 38 games, we will be excellent in this position.

Yes, of course. Because football players stop developing and improving at 27; they stagnate and never ever get any better, unable to adapt or build on their years of experience to improve their game. I mean, look at Ricky Lambert for example.

No Tossas on this link? Hmmm, do they still exist?!