After beating their nearest rivals last Monday night and following it up by securing a place in this season’s FA Cup Final, it certainly has been a big week for fans of Manchester City.However, for the fans of the blue side of Manchester based in Donegal, it promises to be another big week as the Barclays Premier League trophy and FA Community Shield make their way to Ballybofey on Friday next, 19th April.In addition to the two trophies visiting Bonners Corner Bar in Ballybofey – the home of the Blues in Donegal – three former City players will also be there. Johnny Crossan, Gary Owen and Paul Lake all played over one hundred games each for the club during three different eras at the club. All three have great stories to tell about their times at the club, and they will be involved in a Questions and Answers session in Bonners from 9.45pm on Friday evening. Once that has finished, the night will end with a soccer quiz with supporters of others club invited to come along for what should be a great night’s craic. Although City are massive outsiders at this stage to retain the Premier League title they won last season, the trophy will come to Ballybofey on Friday with City still holders of the title. The Community Shield was won at the start of this season when City beat Chelsea 3-2 at Villa Park. Should City go on and win the FA Cup next month, they will return to Wembley in August to defend the Community Shield.The Donegal Branch is now into its fifth season and for the past four years have had its base in Bonners Corner Bar, Ballybofey. In February 2012, the bar became just the tenth recipient of the “Heart of the City” award – an acknowledgment from Manchester City themselves to supporters clubs throughout the world. On the same evening that City were presenting the award to Bonners and the Donegal SC Branch, the FA Cup was on show in Bonners.While the Q&A session and Soccer Quiz is open to anyone to attend, admission to see the two trophies is strictly by ticket only. Tickets are currently on sale in Bonners Bar, Ballybofey priced at €5 for adults and €1 for children for non-members of the Supporters Club. Everyone wanting to see the trophy must be in possession of a ticket. The trophies will be on display from 6.30pm to 10.30pm approximately.On Friday night, the Donegal Manchester City Supporters Club are the match sponsors for the Finn Harps v Salthill Devon game which is taking place at Finn Park (kick-off 8.00pm). The Manchester City Supporters Club urges all football supporters in Donegal to come out and support Finn Harps – not just on Friday night, but at every home game in Finn Park. MAN CITY DONEGAL SUPPORTERS CLUB – BIG WEEK AHEAD was last modified: April 15th, 2013 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
In addition to the published literature, comprehensive assessments on the state of climate science note the significant role that human activities have played in recent climate change and have underscored the urgency to act. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports, with over 830 experts from around the world involved in its writing, confirms this. And the IPCC is not alone: in 2009, a joint statement was made by more than a dozen major national scientific academies stated that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.” The United States’ very own National Climate Assessment, produced by more than 300 experts with review of federal agencies, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences and the public, found that recent warming is “primarily due to human activities.”No Need to Re-invent the WheelA review of climate science from the ground up is like re-inventing the wheel. There is little point to debate over something that has been confirmed and repeatedly reconfirmed.If the Trump administration wants to advance scientific understanding, how about boosting — or at the very least, not slashing — the budget for climate science research? Across the board the administration is rolling back progress and has proposed significant budget cuts to climate science and technology research, such as to climate research at EPA and its Office of Research and Development; NOAA’s satellite division; the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E), which funds research in energy technology development; and NASA Earth science missions, among others.The time for debate on the reality of human-caused climate change is at an end. The Trump administration needs to realize this unless it wants to keep the United States mired in the past, unprepared for a lower-carbon future. U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who spent much of his pre-EPA career suing the agency he now leads, has made no secret of his skepticism about the well-established role human activities play in recent global warming. His latest move would challenge scientific consensus on climate change through a “red team-blue team” exercise designed for crafting defense and intelligence strategies. The process of opposing red and blue teams — the consensus on one side with an equal number of opponents on the other — that Pruitt endorsed again last week might work well to encourage new ideas and test the strength of existing ideas. Indeed, it has been used by major companies in internal strategic exercises, but it is entirely inappropriate for science. It has no place in determining the science of a changing climate.Scientific understanding, unlike proposals for what to do about a given problem, is well established through the scientific method.Peer Review WorksIn calling for the “red team-blue team” exercise, Pruitt stated, “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2 [carbon dioxide].”That’s right: even Pruitt acknowledged the importance of peer-reviewed science. To be accepted into a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, scientific papers, which form the basis of the scientific consensus, are independently reviewed and commented on by a range of experts in the same field. This is an essential part of ensuring the quality of published research. It subjects research findings and methods to others in the field for question, and papers are either rejected, edited or accepted. Many journals also allow other scientists to publish critical comments on published studies, and some journals also have an open peer review process where the public may be able to view review comments and authors’ replies or even comment themselves.If skeptics want their voices heard in scientific discourse, they should try to get their findings published in the peer-reviewed literature. They would then be assessed on their merits through peer review. Indeed a small handful of papers have made it through the peer-review process to be published in the scholarly literature.Giving Too Much Weight to a Skeptical MinorityThe overwhelming majority — 97 percent — of peer-reviewed papers in the literature support the consensus view that human activities have contributed to the majority of recent warming. Because a “vanishingly small proportion” of published research rejects the scientific consensus, giving equal, 50-50 weight to both the red and blue teams in the exercise would mislead the public into thinking there is a debate when there isn’t one. And the Trump administration is likely to stack the red team with fossil fuel industry interests, as it has done with its cabinet positions.