From: MNMikeW on

"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:7u5heeFom1U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> <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
>
was also ignoring the ignore original text for spell-check


From: William Clark on
In article <7u5728Fqr8U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:

> "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/Afr
> >> ica
> >> 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.

Typical. Your sensationalist URLs get shot down cliches actual facts and
data, and all you can then do is shout babyish names. Did you stamp your
foot and hold your breath, too?

As has been proven over nd over again, you denialists don't have a
single piece of solid research on your side, nor have you even looked at
the mountain of data and analysis you are trying to deny. All you can do
is shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.

patheitc.
From: William Clark on
In article <hljnq4$o5c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
"Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.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.
>
> 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.

Er, sorry, but it has not. You clearly did not read the "Hockey Stick
for Dummies" I posted for you. Even that would have been an improvement
over your current state of complete ignorance.
From: William Clark on
In article <hljpjo$r7o$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
"Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:

> "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.

Let me re-phrase that for you, John. What he actually meant was "I
don't have a clue, but Fox told me, so it must be right". He wouldn't
know the "proof" if it bit him.
From: William Clark on
In article
<3ae37aff-1365-43a2-8c93-1ef6fc4dc3c7(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 11:24�am, "Moderate" <no spam @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 @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.

The IPCC Report has a 45 page chapter on glaciers, etc. This WWF one
pager is a complete red herring, and at odds with the 45 pages.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver