Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: John B. on 18 Feb 2010 12:05 On Feb 18, 11:24 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I assume you're talking about the IPCC report on the melting of Himalayan glaciers. It has not been proven wrong. It has only been shown not to be based on peer-reviewed research and therefore not worthy of inclusion in an IPCC report. As for glaciers in general, they're melting all over the world.
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 12:41 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3ae37aff-1365-43a2-8c93-1ef6fc4dc3c7(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Feb 18, 11:24 am, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(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.- Hide > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I assume you're talking about the IPCC report on the melting of Himalayan glaciers. It has not been proven wrong. It has only been shown not to be based on peer-reviewed research and therefore not worthy of inclusion in an IPCC report. As for glaciers in general, they're melting all over the world. ====================== And have been since the last ice age.
From: bknight on 18 Feb 2010 13:00 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:03:24 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >>> You truely are an idiot. >> >> "Truely", again? You "truly" need a spell checker. > >Humm, that is weird. I have it on. > Outlook spell checker problem then. BK
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 14:06 <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message news:e10rn51ieahm9tuvvjrdru8i063emdt9hf(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:03:24 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > wrote: > >> >>"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > >>>> You truely are an idiot. >>> >>> "Truely", again? You "truly" need a spell checker. >> >>Humm, that is weird. I have it on. >> > > Outlook spell checker problem then. > > BK truly check
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 14:11
In article <hljoi3$phc$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-DCE75A.08133518022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <MPG.25e6fa301803722f989be3(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > Historical levels of CO2 have nothing to do with AGW, but Sarah Palin is > relevant to the issue. > > Clark is in rare form today. Good stuff. Little Sir Echo strikes again. Never fails. |