I am Ram

A fine performance, another clean sheet. The fight, the spirit and now the football this team shows, is nothing short of amazing, considering where we were in the summer.  Derby County is on the rise again. UTR 

Great xmas results from the lads, Warne has this team working hard on/off the ball. A few teams looking over their shoulders now ?.

If we win our next game, i think we've had a great xmas. Our patched up team continues to impress me, you can't knock how hard this team is trying. We did win 4-0 a couple of games back, a bit of patience and the goals will come.

Onwards and upwards, clean sheet, 3pts, on to the next one.

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Yep.

But to give him his due he cut out two very dangerous deliveries from them in our box not long after the restart.

He did and put a couple of dangerous crosses in towards the end.

That was very entertaining, even though neither side could finish a Sunday dinner. Our defence played well , midfield ratted and harried but didn't get control. Up front we was ............ something that rhymes with it. All in all a good result, clean sheet, Fozzie Motm . Right back and a Striker in jan, onwards and upwards. UTR  

I'd take Shinnie out of the stand and replace Hourihane, even his delivery is meh.

I know it says pick one, but I'm greedy lol. It would be an helluva day if both win ?

Much improved second half, it turned into a good cup tie in the end. 

Great goal Sibbo, c'mon Derby.

This is nearly as bad as watching England.

We won't get much chat off Dawnie this season, they only pop in after a win ?

13 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I don't see how it would. Maybe you have ideas about that yourself.

For starters if you are producing your own power, then oil producing nations can't charge you whatever the want for their oil and Russia can't turn off the gas when there is a war on.  I think any country would want to be self sufficient in terms of energy production from a national security point of view.  

I was thinking our defence systems are not very green (nuclear) etc, would they have to go.

14 minutes ago, Highgate said:

 It would mean clean air, less illness and death from respiratory and cardiac illness in the UK.  It would mean energy security for the UK, a domestic energy production industry and jobs, and not having to pay Russia, Iran and Saudi £billions for their fossil fuels.  It would mean the UK would be a world leader and an example to the rest of the world on how to make the transition to a green energy sector. 

You are right about Net Zero in the UK alone having a negligible impact on global climate change but there are loads of good reasons for the UK to crack on with going green.

If we did go all in (green), and say China, Russia and Iran never did, would this weaken us at a security and defensive level  ?

1 minute ago, Archied said:

Like present day Egypt ( sharmel shakedown town)?

I mean if they were serious, instead of an all expense paid pissup. Couldn't they have had this conference over the internet lol. I think it's the usual message, we the plebs cut down and the rich\well off and famous carry on. Hypocrites.

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Or brush up on your cockney. China is 39 times bigger than the UK, so by size you're saying that we are worse polluters

It will not mean a thing if we went 100% green tomorrow, if China, Usa, India, Russia and Iran don't. It's a global issue, just stop oil should protest in the worst offending countries first.

China has emitted more pollution in 14 years, than the UK has in the past 220 years. Brush up on your Mandarin chaps, some countries are not getting the message.

Good one half, poor in the second half, pretty much been that way all season. I know there are factors like injuries, suspensions, not enough players, but the inconsistent performances' each week are getting frustrating. 

57 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I don't know exactly how skeptical you are of science, but I'll assume that you understand and agree that GHGs in the atmosphere warm up the planet. I mean that is established well beyond any reasonable doubt and the effect can be demonstrated by any competent school science teacher so I don't see how there is any room for debate on that point.  

Given that that is the case and given that what is depicted in the graph below is also the case, then the extrapolation isn't too difficult.  I've not mentioned politics at all as it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether anthropogenic climate change is true or false.  Only science can tell us that. 

 

Why do you fail to acknowledge other causes and\or reasons that contribute to global warming, other than human consumptions. Has you keep telling me, the science is out there. You just don't like a different narrative it appears, if we can't debate, it turns into a one sided lecture.

11 minutes ago, Highgate said:

With respect I think you are several decades behind the curve here.  

The fact that humans cause climate change is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. 

And even if your skepticism managed to persist after evaluating the opinions of those qualified to judge on this issue (i.e. climate scientists), what error would you like us to make as a society?

To switch to clean domestic energy sources, with no air pollution, when it wasn't necessary for climate change purposes?  Or to stick with fossil fuels when the scientists turned out to correct about climate change all along?  

The point here is, while predicting our precise climatic future is a difficult computational problem given the complexity of climate, the simplicity of the greenhouse effect means that knowing that the planet is going to warm up due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere is a slam dunk.  There is simply no way around it, the only debate is...by how much?  

I'm not several decades behind at all (respect lol), sorry for not 'believing all science', sorry i had an opinion that differs from yours. I am not a denier, i know we contribute ghg\fossil fuels etc, but the earth has been warming for 11,700 years we are in an interglacial period. Truly with respect, there are many different theories and scientific studies out there, yours is the mainstream narrative at this present time, but it comes with a political undertone, hence a slight skepticism. I will leave you peacefully to debate on.

3 hours ago, Highgate said:

And yet accumulated an impressive body of knowledge over time.  So much so that we are able to land a probe on a comet nearly a half a billion kilometres away from Earth.  How hard would that be without science?  

If you don't trust the scientists who do we believe when it comes to climate change?  

It is healthy to have a base of scepticism, until proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nobody is denying climate change, just the root cause and how much we affect it. For example, when i was at school, all the scientists were talking up a new ice age. 

Science gets more things' wrong, than right. 

Well done lads, a very good performance. I feel the players have been underperforming, for both managers this season. Credit where its due though, this is the standard. We just need to get a run together.  

3 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

The difference is, Rosenior was the interim manager. So of course people were going to be quicker to make up their minds. I remember when Wassall was interim manager and we lost at home to MK Dons in his first game and that was that for some. 

Warne is the permanent manager and he has been given a four year contract, so he should be given more time and more support to allow him to show why Clowes backed him and with such commitment.

If you really don’t think he’s under pressure, have a read of the thread from last week’s EFL Trophy game. The support for Warne is already waning.

 

So, what you mean is, give him 11 games instead of your usual 10 ?. I mean 5 ?

4 minutes ago, Alpha said:

I bet he saw that annoying yoghurt advert when she gets some on her nose.

I didn't understand it Alpha at he time, why Lewis ?. Worst decision in F1, well until Red Bull got a little slap on the wrist for a 7.25m prawn sandwich.