Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: Carbon on 18 Feb 2010 18:00 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:42:24 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > You truely are an idiot. hmmm...
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 18:01 In article <clark-DCE75A.08133518022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > 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? > > 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. Talk about hubris. What happens if 1997 XF11 changes its path slightly and impacts the earth in 2028? We are at the mercy of events completely and totally beyond our control.
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 18:04 In article <clark-7026F6.08145218022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > In article <MPG.25e6fcf3ad5fc1ec989be8(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <wclark2-EB1AE8.22003517022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > In article <cf2pn5dcunk2iaqbrchm2csshguep66q4b(a)4ax.com>, > > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 Feb 2010 16:12:52 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> 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 missed the point. If you are going to say that AGW is happening, > > > > you have to support it with proof. No one has to prove that it isn't > > > > happening. The burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim. > > > > That's how science works. > > > > > > 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. > > > > We do not accept your evidence because it is steeped in policial motives > > and social engineering. > > no, you do not accept it because it runs counter to your blind political > prejudice, and therefore cannot be accepted. You have produced not one > shred of scientific evidence to support putting your head in the sand. Your continued defense of the indefensible is becoming tiresome. If your basic research is flawed or unsupportable then all research based upon that basic research is useless.
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 18:06 In article <clark-AB12FD.08102718022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > If the principals have been proved to be liars and driven by personal > > political goals and stifling debate and peer review what are we to think > > of them and believe of their work product? > > Perhaps, but they haven't. It is only your blind prejudice that says > they have, because you lack the tools to produce any counter argument > supported by data. They, the principals, have admitted to being politically motivated. The real question is where is Michael Mann?
From: Carbon on 18 Feb 2010 18:07
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:37:13 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0500, BAR wrote: >>> In article <0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnouve4(a)4ax.com>, >>> bknight(a)conramp.net says... >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "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> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. > > LOL Mr. Kettle. You need to learn to read. I have said here over and over again that I do not know to what extent, if any, AGW exists. Neither do any of you zealots. And yet, you're all so certain you're right. How is it, Mike, that you and all your right-wing friends can be so certain that so many climatologists are wrong, when hardly any of you have any expertise in the area? Please just tell me that. How are you so sure? |