Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 16:47 In article <7u5l6oFfurU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "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 Well, we know that, the question is to what degree, and what should be done about it.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 16:48 In article <hlk8vk$o1t$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-913CB1.14255818022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <hljoau$p2c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > >> news:wclark2-EB1AE8.22003517022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > > >> > The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, which none of you > >> > wingnuts either can, or bother to, read, is that there is a significant > >> > contribution from AGW. That's the starting point, so now you can jump > >> > up > >> > and down and stamp your feet again. > >> > >> Hahaha, you haven't read the IPCC report. That is about the only fact > >> related to AWG that I would bet on. > > > > And you are simply lying. Again. > > Stop projecting. You are the liar. Thank you - your childish screaming just proved my point precisely.
From: Moderate on 18 Feb 2010 16:53 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-70544B.16453918022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hlk8tf$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. Your previous statement in this thread: 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.
From: John B. on 18 Feb 2010 16:54 On Feb 18, 3:11 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > > news:clark-81577F.14252318022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > > > In article <7u5a50Fd4...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > >>news:clark-0771DB.11075018022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > In article <7u55f1Fhn...(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> >> "William Clark" <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > >> >>news:wclark2-5A4756.22020617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.... > >> >> > In article <wHUen.74969$RS6.11...(a)newsfe15.iad>, > >> >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> 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". > > >> >> > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - For climate change deniers, it's much easier to beat up on Al Gore than to study and respond to the science. But frankly, I don't blame them. He's arrogant and self-righteous and he does his cause more harm than good in my view.
From: MNMikeW on 18 Feb 2010 17:09
"William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-3E94BB.16471618022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > 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. Pretty rich coming from the king of insults. Just what exactly is insulting in my last post? Oh, using the term alarmists? LOL! |