Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 11:12 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:37d80766-7b3e-4ca4-8dd6-f3af2a3e2cd1(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Feb 18, 7:18 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <4b7c9f1b$0$5095$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:21:47 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >>> In article <0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnou...(a)4ax.com>, > > >>> bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> > > >>>> 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> > > > >>>>>>> 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?- > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - They don't believe history started with the industrial revolution. They believe GHG emissions started with the industrial revolution. ---------------------------- Volcanoes started with the industrial revolution?
From: John B. on 18 Feb 2010 11:15 On Feb 18, 11:12 am, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:37d80766-7b3e-4ca4-8dd6-f3af2a3e2cd1(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 18, 7:18 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <4b7c9f1b$0$5095$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:21:47 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > > In article <4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > >>> In article <0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnou...(a)4ax.com>, > > > >>> bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> > > > >>>> 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> > > > > >>>>>>> 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?- > > Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > They don't believe history started with the industrial revolution. > They believe GHG emissions started with the industrial revolution. > > ---------------------------- > > Volcanoes started with the industrial revolution?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - OK, Mike, anthropogenic GHG emissions started w/the industrial revolution.
From: Moderate on 18 Feb 2010 11:24 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:21f24315-1f88-4684-b91b-2ef9d7f969d6(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... 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? ********************************************************* I am not going to repost every source you missed. Try and keep up.
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 12:02 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-0771DB.11075018022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7u55f1FhnnU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:wclark2-5A4756.22020617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > 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". >> >> You truely are an idiot. > > "Truely"? OK. show me where the science is "settled". It isnt. But somebody might want to tell Al Gore that.
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 12:03
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-6D9B6F.11101118022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > 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. Humm, that is weird. I have it on. |