Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 07:34 In article <wclark2-5A4756.22020617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <wHUen.74969$RS6.11194(a)newsfe15.iad>, > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > > >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > >> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > > >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with absolute > > >>>>certainty that the current warming trend is being caused by humans. > > >>> > > >>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any > > >>> argument. > > >>> > > >> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of > > >> that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being > > >> settled. > > > > > > Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, now can > > > you? > > > > You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that AGW does > > occur. > > > > The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for years > > that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was and is a lie plain > > and simple promoted for political reasons masquerading behind faulty > > "science". > > No they have not been saying it is "settled". They do say that the > preponderance of available evidence, and a very significant > preponderance, indicates that it does. If you want to take the opposite > view, you need to produce some counter evidence, and that does not mean > shouting about the principals. If the principals have been proved to be liars and driven by personal political goals and stifling debate and peer review what are we to think of them and believe of their work product?
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 07:35 In article <wclark2-4E4650.22034617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > Have you been living in a cave since November? The "climatologists" have > > not been involved in science, they have been caught advancing political > > views and social engineering. As each new day passes the revelations > > that the WWF, a student's master thesis and other rabid environmentalist > > organizations have been used as references to promote the catastrophic > > warming described in the IPCC reports. But, you can ignore all of that > > and stick to your guns and ignore all of this because you it doesn't fit > > your desired outcome. > > Then you have clear evidence that the 3,000 pages of data and analysis > in the IPCC report are wrong? Please share it with us, rather than these > stupid National Enquirer type headlines. > The rats are abandoning the ship; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021801331_pf.html
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 08:10 In article <MPG.25e6fdd42d00e964989be9(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-5A4756.22020617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <wHUen.74969$RS6.11194(a)newsfe15.iad>, > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > > news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > > > >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > > >> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > > > >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>>Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with absolute > > > >>>>certainty that the current warming trend is being caused by humans. > > > >>> > > > >>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any > > > >>> argument. > > > >>> > > > >> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of > > > >> that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being > > > >> settled. > > > > > > > > Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, now > > > > can > > > > you? > > > > > > You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that AGW does > > > occur. > > > > > > The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for years > > > that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was and is a lie > > > plain > > > and simple promoted for political reasons masquerading behind faulty > > > "science". > > > > No they have not been saying it is "settled". They do say that the > > preponderance of available evidence, and a very significant > > preponderance, indicates that it does. If you want to take the opposite > > view, you need to produce some counter evidence, and that does not mean > > shouting about the principals. > > If the principals have been proved to be liars and driven by personal > political goals and stifling debate and peer review what are we to think > of them and believe of their work product? Perhaps, but they haven't. It is only your blind prejudice that says they have, because you lack the tools to produce any counter argument supported by data.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 08:13 In article <MPG.25e6fa301803722f989be3(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <4b7c9f1b$0$5095$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:21:47 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >>> In article <0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnouve4(a)4ax.com>, > > >>> bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > >>>>> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > > >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with absolute > > >>>>>>> certainty that the current warming trend is being caused by > > >>>>>>> humans. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any > > >>>>>> argument. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none > > >>>>> of that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being > > >>>>> settled. > > >>>> > > >>>> My point is that the opinions voiced here are by people who don't > > >>>> have access, nor understanding of the factors in the argument. > > >>> > > >>> You are kidding, I hope. > > >>> > > >>> I know when someone is feeding me a line of BS and trying to steal > > >>> money out of my wallet. Global Warming/Climate Change is BS and a > > >>> money grab. > > >> > > >> You don't like AGW because you disagree with the politics of many of > > >> its supporters. You have absolutely no idea what the real truth is. > > >> You're like a child. > > > > > > I don't like AGW because it doesn't exist. It is a theory and a bad > > > theory that is not supported by the historic record. History didn't > > > start in 1850. > > > > You don't know if AGW exists or not. You don't know to what extent it is > > supported by the historic record. So it is pretty amazing that you can > > be so certain about it. > > > > By the way, I agree with your last statement: "History didn't start in > > 1850." Congratulations on producing an actual statement of fact. > > Please pass along this fact to the IPCC and the "climatologist" who > believe history started with the industrial revolution and that the > billions of years of Earth's existence and climatic cycles that preceded > 1850 should be studied too. > > Was CO2 and the Earths temperature ever greater than it is now and why? Which, of course, really hs nothing to do with anything. It is only the Sarah Palins of the world that believe the dinosaurs impacted man (because they walked on earth together), and the dinosaurs died out. The purpose of the contemporary concern with climate is to make sure that man doesn't suffer the same fate because of his own ignorance.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 08:14
In article <MPG.25e6fcf3ad5fc1ec989be8(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-EB1AE8.22003517022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <cf2pn5dcunk2iaqbrchm2csshguep66q4b(a)4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On 17 Feb 2010 16:12:52 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of > > > >> that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being > > > >> settled. > > > > > > > >Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, now can > > > >you? > > > > > > You missed the point. If you are going to say that AGW is happening, > > > you have to support it with proof. No one has to prove that it isn't > > > happening. The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim. > > > That's how science works. > > > > The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, which none of you > > wingnuts either can, or bother to, read, is that there is a significant > > contribution from AGW. That's the starting point, so now you can jump up > > and down and stamp your feet again. > > We do not accept your evidence because it is steeped in policial motives > and social engineering. no, you do not accept it because it runs counter to your blind political prejudice, and therefore cannot be accepted. You have produced not one shred of scientific evidence to support putting your head in the sand. |