Happy Face

When the water rises other clubs will be submerged and our rise to prominence will begin (about as much hope of every club in the premier league going bust in our lifetime as Ashley seems to be pinning his hopes on).

Happy, you've just contradicted yourself there. There's a difference between evidence and proof. The amount of evidence to support a theory could be small or large. Proof is absolute. It either exists or it doesn't. When you weigh up ALL the evidence there is on climate change, we can be over 90% sure it's man made.

Do you go to a single restaurant for ALL your eating needs? If Fujiyama aren't serving Big Mac's they're out of whack?

My hikikomori hinders any alliances.

It's been officially confirmed that Obama has authorised the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. He's a US citizen. They allege he was involved in planning attacks (though not actually succeeding), but he's not being afforded the due process that is enshrined constitutionally for ALL citizens, whether rapist, paedophile or murderer.

The science isn't balanced...so the coverage isn't. Sceptics do get to put their side though. so, in other words you're saying (or maybe the BEEB is saying) is that the science isn't quite settled yet? and that the BEEB only supports their current view because a majority say so? not greatly convincing. in the 16/17th century leaches were considered a fantastic cure for diarrhea and the majority of physicians of the time would have prescribed as such. however, as time progressed this was proven to be nonsense. I've yet to see impirical evidence that climate change is man made and nor do i expect to see such evidence in the near future. That's the BBC's job, to reflect what the best evidence currently says. Would you prefer the BBC give equal coverage to creationism and evolutionry theories? Despite what all the science says, there's no conclusive proof that god himself didn't create human beings. Was it against the BBC charter to have the recent season of Darwin shows celebrating his work without also devoting the same level of coverage to religious fruit cakes?

You mean the accurate portrayal of what's happening according to the best evidence scientists have available and that they'll allow us to see because sometimes the numbers dont quite tally? FYP It took a long time to make the numbers tally to show a bee can actually fly....ALL the evidence still pointed to the fact that bees do indeed fly though. ha, great reply Happy. however, i would point to the fact that it was patently obvious that bees could fly, anyone with a pair of eyes (or even just one eye) could see that. however it is not YET patently obvious that climate change is man made as reported by said 'scientists'. That's the point. Scientists were 90% certain bees could fly. All the evidence said they could, including our eyes telling us it was so...but arguments raged about the numbers to prove it. It's the same with climate change. Scientist have said with 90% certainty it's cause is man-made because ALL the evidence says it is....actually proving it beyond any doubt whatsoever with numbers is where the debate is.

If you email the BBC this is what they'll respond... The science isn't balanced...so the coverage isn't. Sceptics do get to put their side though.

If you don't, I'd say it's pretty ironic to complain about climate scientists or the BBC misrepresenting a situation. Welcome to the board btw

Official BBC policy? Do you have a source? Peter Sisson said it's "effectively BBC policy"...but seemed to ignore the ample coverage sceptics are given as proven by the links above.

But the BBC covered both of those. Andrew Montford talked about his work and his views on climate change on Radio 4's The Report on Dec 10th and climategate received much balanced coverage.... http://www.stacey-international.co.uk/v1/s...29&catname= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p6t26 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8388485.stm I'll not call you a muppet.

You mean the accurate portrayal of what's happening according to the best evidence scientists have available and that they'll allow us to see because sometimes the numbers dont quite tally? FYP It took a long time to make the numbers tally to show a bee can actually fly....ALL the evidence still pointed to the fact that bees do indeed fly though.

Christmas Tree telling others to be wary of pie in the sky?

Link

That'd be a lot of work to get the numbers. Interesting to note that in 3 years only 3 teams have spent less than £14m having been promoted, and none of them survived.

That's crying out for a bubble chart.

Aye. No Englishmen going past the semi final. Capello will be delighted.

Not sure what game you were watching but once Rooney went off they had Nani upfront who touched the ball about twice in the second half. They went to two banks of four and he bought O's Shea on. Giggs and Berb came on way too late. He tried to defend it IMO. What happened to all those young strikers they've got..Van der Sar at fault for the first goal, a striker should never be scoring from that ange with his wrong foot. Exactly. That goal was scored completley against the run of play. Fergie's tactics were spot on and like you say, that was Van Der Sar's fault.

3 nil up in the first half and people complaining Fergie's too defensive Man U had as many shots on target as Bayern and more than twice as many off target despite playing half the game with ten men and (as a result) having only 2 fifths of posession. They were beaten by an incredible goal. Not sure how anyone could think losing Rafael (who'd been mint) and Rooney should not stretch Man U.

You have to wonder if she can see the irony of describing people as warped, militant, cowardly factually challenged half-wits & numbskulls then advocating a national "Online Respect" campaign "to modify an uncomfortably harsh climate of web ranting." Would the respect campaign allow such vitriol Louise?

You mean the accurate portrayal of what's happening according to the best evidence scientists have available?

what a tart. That applies to her more than anyone on the internet.

I'd imagine that would be the mean spend last summer, which would be hugely skewed by Man City's outlay. I reckon anything upwards of £20 million spent (which is of course a very big if) would put us in the top 6 or 7 spenders in the league. Take out their £90m summer spending and it's still £360m between 19 clubs which would be £19m each. Course the top clubs (with their euro millions) skew it (probably moreso on the average debt than the average spending) but I'm being fair to Chez in that the numbers do work out about average across the PL. The fact that any club fighting relegation with those kinds of outgoings would be in serious financial doo-doo and Ashley's shown no propensity to throw that kind of money at mounting a challenge for the top half makes me sceptical it'll happen that way.