Guided Missile

This thread needs a Remainer hero video.

Another arrow for shooting fish in a barrel:

Buy a relatively new Euro 6 diesel and run it into the ground, in my opinion. I was an early adopter of a Golf E and couldn't wait to get shot of it after 2 years. A nightmare. One day E.V's maybe practical, but probably not. Remember Gordon Brown? Sales of diesel vehicles soared from 1.5 million to 11 million since a tax break was introduced when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. In 2001, Gordon Brown – then Chancellor – introduced lower vehicle tax for diesel cars on the basis they were less polluting and would bring down overall carbon dioxide levels.🤣 Don't trust the government. They are banning gas boilers for heat fucking pumps.

Southampton FC, like any other team, can use various tactics to reduce the likelihood of losing matches. Here are some key tactics and strategies they can consider: Strong Defence: Organized Defence: Ensure a well-structured and organized defence that communicates effectively. Players should maintain their positions and be aware of their defensive responsibilities. Compact Shape: Keep a compact defensive shape when out of possession to limit the space for the opposition to exploit. Midfield Control: Dominating Possession: Focus on maintaining possession of the ball, which can limit the opponent's opportunities to score. Pressing and High Intensity: Implement a high-pressing game to win the ball back quickly in the opponent's half, preventing them from building attacks. Set Piece Defence: Work on defending set pieces (corners, free-kicks) diligently as many goals are scored from such situations. Tactical Flexibility: Be adaptable with formations and tactics depending on the opponent. This includes switching between a more offensive or defensive approach as needed. Player Fitness and Rotation: Ensure that players are physically fit and rotated effectively to prevent fatigue and injuries. Psychological Preparation: Work on players' mental strength and resilience to maintain a positive attitude even in difficult situations. This can help prevent late collapses in matches. Scouting and Analysis: Thoroughly analyse opponents to identify weaknesses and exploit them. Also, learn from previous defeats and adapt accordingly. Goalkeeper Performance: Ensure your goalkeeper is in top form as they can be a game-changer by making crucial saves. Fan Support: Utilize the home advantage by creating a supportive and intimidating atmosphere in the stadium. Leadership: Appoint a strong team captain and leaders on the field who can motivate and guide the team during matches. Youth Development: Invest in youth development to create a pipeline of talented players who can strengthen the squad and provide healthy competition. Transfers and Squad Depth: Make strategic transfers to improve the squad's quality and depth. This ensures there are capable substitutes for key positions. Game Management: Teach players to manage games effectively by controlling the tempo, especially when leading in the late stages. Video Analysis: Review game footage regularly to identify areas of improvement and to assess the team's performance.

Actually it is going well, at long last: I wonder how the US/EU FTA is going? Nowhere, I suspect.

He's the author, she's just another selective media whore.

And fuck the journal she edits. Springer-Nature is a multibillion-dollar, for-profit, private media empire. They have the same incentives as any for-profit media company- NYT or Fox News- to tell the stories that get audience engagement. Scientists have an incentive, in the form of prestige, to play along. Still, it's fun to see the sheep on here lap up the bullshit. (Those that aren't on ignore. Jeez, that's most of them)

Fuck her. Here's the authors reply on X:

And on cue, Matt Ridley comments on the lying scientists in the Telegraph this morning. Worth a read and apposite to this thread and others. Like mushrooms, we're kept in the dark and showered with shit.

Climate scientist admits overhyping impact of global warming on wildfires to get published here:

Talking of which, read all about it, here: The fucker...

Talking about Koonin cherry picking, the above is worth repeating.

Rather than watching the video, a while ago, I read his book cover to cover, pretty much as soon as it was published. It took around 7 hours, plus the time spent looking at the sources he referenced and where the data resides. As you say, the main sources are IPCC reports. My takeaway is that Koonin has written the most important and scientifically credible book ever, on the net zero cult, which debunks the whole zero carbon fallacy. I bet a pound to a pinch of shit that none of the usual trolls on this site have actually read his book, but just simply repeat their unsupported position, on what is an incredibly complicated subject. What gets me is that they are willing to spend all of our tax on the unproven net zero bollox, which has simply become a tool for the Marxist left to take down the highly successful Western capitalist democracies. You just have to watch the complete lack of support for net zero from China, Russia and the rest, with third world dictatorships looking for handouts and raw material (e.g. lithium) sales for the milk floats, being forced down our throats. A little takeaway on global CO2 levels. Below 150ppm and all life on Earth ends. Levels of around 500ppm, predicted in the next 50 years and MAYBE global temperatures increase by 3C (together with a corresponding increase in crop yields). Pretty much sums up why I'm very relaxed about current and future global CO2 levels. Finally, don't comment about Koonin's book if you haven't read it. It will just make you look like an uninformed chump.

I know climate is what you expect and weather is what you get, but, really. Only a week ago it was forecast that we were going to be basking in sun, hotter than LA. It has got to make you wonder why trillions will be thrown away, to prevent the predicted long term climate change and getting a five day forecast right is such a struggle.

Calm down dear, it's only the EU...

I'd keep quiet mate. You Private Fraser doom laden forecasts at the beginning of this thread are an embarrassment now.

Oh dear, the economic modellers are about as accurate as the climate bunch. Remainers, your guys have taken a hell of a beating.

You forgot the benefits of increased CO2 on plant life and the dangers of a reduction below 150ppm. As Patrick Moore, a former Director of Greenpeace wrote a while ago:

A degree, 40 years in research and over 40 patents may do it.

The United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization (UN WMO) is pretty clear about the science of hurricanes as well, — World Meteorological Organization (WMO) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 is slightly less clear but scientifically says the same thing, — IPCC, AR5

I can just see a climate scientist playing roulette in Vegas, making a note of the winning numbers to predict his next bet.

The advantage of the ignore function allows me to guess what my trolls will have posted. My guess is total bullshit and self-aggrandisement, as in "listen to me, I'm an expert." Still, in the hope that nottooclevertim is willing to engage in the scientific method of debate (not that I've read what the arsewhipe posted), here's an example of scientific lying to try and prove a point: The National Climate Assessment (NCA2014) stated this: The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm. The following graph is included, with a sharp upward rising trend, to suggest the severity of the problem. This is cherry-picked information that is misinforming – it is completely factual but not factually complete. When you zoom out and reframe the same data into a longer climatically relevant time period, the result looks less compelling and certainly less alarming. I call the above data, an example of a scientist lying, deliberately.

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports. “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.

— Paul Watson, Cofounder of Greenpeace — Timothy Worth, President of The UN Foundation — Daniel Botkin, Former Chair of Environmental Studies at the University of Calfiornia at Santa Barbara

I would like to state, after many, many years of experience, that scientists lie. The ethics involved in the lies, we have all been told, by "scientists" and their gormless supporters, (usually self serving politicians or corporations), have been rapidly increasing. They have recently been related to: the origins of covid, the need and effectiveness of the lockdown, the efficacy and safety of quickly developed vaccines and the subject of this thread, human induced climate change. This particular ethical bind was described as early as 1989 by prominent Stanford climate researcher, Stephen Schneider, like this: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working, to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” My advice, for what it's worth, is read the data, don't rely on someone to interpret it for you. If you can't be bothered or feel unable to, your opinion is not worth much to the debate. Oh and for the scientists you do believe, follow the money, the root of all evil. At least the corporations involved are honest about their motives.