Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 15:11 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-81577F.14252318022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7u5a50Fd42U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > You clearly have a quote from him claiming that the science is "settled"? The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions - from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources - are heating the Earth's atmosphere. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642
From: Moderate on 18 Feb 2010 15:45 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-5E0C9D.14232318022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > 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 >> > >> > > > 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. So you are retracting your previous statement? Well done.
From: Moderate on 18 Feb 2010 15:46 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-913CB1.14255818022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hljoau$p2c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:wclark2-EB1AE8.22003517022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > >> > The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, which none of you >> > wingnuts either can, or bother to, read, is that there is a significant >> > contribution from AGW. That's the starting point, so now you can jump >> > up >> > and down and stamp your feet again. >> >> Hahaha, you haven't read the IPCC report. That is about the only fact >> related to AWG that I would bet on. > > And you are simply lying. Again. Stop projecting. You are the liar.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 16:45 In article <hlk8tf$nu5$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-5E0C9D.14232318022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > 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 > >> > > >> > > > 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. > > So you are retracting your previous statement? Well done. Which "previous statement" would that be? Don't tell me, you can't be bothered to find it. Surprise, surprise.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 16:47
In article <7u5l1lFf02U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-8A2C42.14142918022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > 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? > > LOL! So suddenly denialist is a babyish name! > > > > As has been proven over nd over again, you denialists don't have a > > Oops, looks like a babyish name to me. > > > 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. > > It's the alarmists like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. So, once again, you meet facts and information, with posturing like a spoilt five year old. But then you have nothing to defend your absurd rantings, so better go back to shouting insults. How typical. |