Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 11:09 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-1F01AB.11070118022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7u54tbFek0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:wclark2-AD021F.22044317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >> > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR wrote: >> >> > In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >> >> > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> >> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum 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". >> >> >> >> >> >> Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all >> >> >> the non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in >> >> >> the >> >> >> best possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the >> >> >> climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be >> >> >> biased! >> >> > >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> I'll try this one more time. The fact that there are douchebags in a >> >> particular field does not invalidate that entire field of study. It >> >> just >> >> doesn't follow. I honestly wonder at the mental capacity of anyone who >> >> would think otherwise. >> > >> > But the fact remains that, for all their huffing and puffing, the >> > denialists have yet to prove any of the IPCC Report conclusions to be >> > wrong. >> >> For instance, since it was revealed two weeks ago that the IPCC had >> relied >> on speculation by an environmental interest group -- rather than >> peer-reviewed science -- when it made its famous 2007 claim that there >> was a >> 90% chance all 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas would be melted by 2035, >> the >> agency's lead glacier scientist, Murari Lal, has admitted he knew the >> data >> was faulty when he inserted it in the UN's last official Assessment >> Report, >> but he did so nonetheless because "we thought that if we can highlight >> it, >> it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take >> some >> concrete action." >> >> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/Africa >> n-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html > > No, this is nonsense. It was shown that this WWF Himalayan data (one > page in 3,000) was incorrect, and from a less than credible source. > Moreover, it contradicted the data and correct predictions contained in > volume 1 of the Report. There you will find a 45 page chapter on > glaciers, snow and ice, etc., using valid data and projections. So the > error was that the Chapter 2 authors, instead of relying on the evidence > on Chapter 1, used this unsubstantiated projection. The error was > unearthed by, who? Gosh the IPCC authors themselves. Can you imagine the > denialists ever calling a fault on themselves? Absolutely not. Anyway, > fixing this error requires no more than the deletion of two sentences in > the 3,000 page Report. But you guys have to grab hold of it in an > attempt to discredit the whole thing. Typical. > > The African crop yield nonsense is based on a single reference (Agoumi), > from a report funded by the US Agency for International Development. In > fact, the IPCC Report contains a detailed discussion of his projections > (Chapter 9), including the following caveat: "However, not all changes > in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and > the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the > Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), > may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased > temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate > scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for > irrigated and, especially, dryland farms". So it is, in fact a balanced > discussion of the crop issue, and not the kind of misguided hysteria > coming from the other side. > > You also make the error of assuming that the IPCC Panel is a UN panel. > It is not. And so it goes on. Nice denialism.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 11:10 In article <7u55dvFhfaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-3DC0E6.21570317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <7u2fqrFgqkU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "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> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:05:54 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>>Again, there is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are having > >> >>>>any significant impact on global temperature. > >> >>> > >> >>>That is just as asinine as someone saying that humans are the absolute > >> >>>cause of global temperature changes. > >> >>> > >> >>>But, Jack Hollis of RSG fame, and no climatological background, has > >> >>>spoken. LOL > >> >> > >> >>I have no idea how much humans are contributing to the current warming > >> >>trend and neither does anyone else. > >> > > >> > Exactly. > >> > > >> > So how can you even discuss how much scientific proof there is... or > >> > isn't? This whole discussion here has reached a point of silliness, > >> > and definite, absolute, statements are rife. Two years ago 72% of > >> > climatologists thought that humans had something to do with global > >> > warming. Wonder what that percentage is now? > >> > > >> > Let the scientists hassle it out. > >> > > >> > > >> That would be nice, and is needed. But this is all about politics now. > >> > >> > >> >>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. > > > > 100% wrong. The only ones peddling absolute certainty in this are the > > denialists, > > You truely are an idiot. "Truely", again? You "truly" need a spell checker.
From: John B. on 18 Feb 2010 11:10 On Feb 18, 10:22 am, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f17239b4-36bc-4757-984e-fc04cbac711e(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 4:34 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > >news:4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote: > > >> "Carbon" <nob...(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: > > >>>> <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > >>>>news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > > >>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...(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". > > > > Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all the > > > non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the best > > > possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the climatologists! If > > > they say inconvenient things they must be biased! > > > That can go both ways. Ignore the skeptical climatologists! If they say > > inconvenient things they must be biased!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Skeptical climatologists? I know of three. Lindzen, Singer and > Michaels. Michaels was the VA state climatologist until the state > canned him for taking industry money. Now he's at the Cato Institute. > Are there others? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstre... > > http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm > > http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/northwest_06-21... > > http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I said "climatologists," not "scientists." In all these links, I could find two.
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 11:11 "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message news:hljnq4$o5c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-AD021F.22044317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR wrote: >>> > In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>> > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum 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". >>> >> >>> >> Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all >>> >> the non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the >>> >> best possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the >>> >> climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be biased! >>> > >>> > 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. >>> >>> I'll try this one more time. The fact that there are douchebags in a >>> particular field does not invalidate that entire field of study. It just >>> doesn't follow. I honestly wonder at the mental capacity of anyone who >>> would think otherwise. >> >> But the fact remains that, for all their huffing and puffing, the >> denialists have yet to prove any of the IPCC Report conclusions to be >> wrong. > > Are you nuts? The hockey stick has been proven wrong, the glacial > shrinking has been proven wrong, the sea level theory has been proven > wrong. Good grief. > And yet he calls us the denialists, lol!
From: John B. on 18 Feb 2010 11:12
On Feb 18, 10:53 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:wclark2-AD021F.22044317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > > > In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR wrote: > >> > In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >> > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote: > >> >>> "Carbon" <nob...(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: > >> >>>>> <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >>>>>news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com... > >> >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis > >> >>>>>> <xslee...(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". > > >> >> Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all > >> >> the non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the > >> >> best possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the > >> >> climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be biased! > > >> > 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. > > >> I'll try this one more time. The fact that there are douchebags in a > >> particular field does not invalidate that entire field of study. It just > >> doesn't follow. I honestly wonder at the mental capacity of anyone who > >> would think otherwise. > > > But the fact remains that, for all their huffing and puffing, the > > denialists have yet to prove any of the IPCC Report conclusions to be > > wrong. > > Are you nuts? The hockey stick has been proven wrong, the glacial shrinking > has been proven wrong, the sea level theory has been proven wrong. Good > grief.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Glacial melting has been proven wrong? By whom? |