Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 18:07 In article <clark-6475DE.08193618022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > In article <MPG.25e6fe21f162a4c4989bea(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <wclark2-4E4650.22034617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Then you have clear evidence that the 3,000 pages of data and analysis > > > in the IPCC report are wrong? Please share it with us, rather than these > > > stupid National Enquirer type headlines. > > > > > > > The rats are abandoning the ship; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > > dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021801331_pf.html > > Sorry, they are not. You try to cherry pick one here and there, just so > you can avoid the mountain of evidence. How pathetic. You don't know how to read a resignation letter or statement.
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 18:08 In article <clark-143C77.08211218022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > In article <MPG.25e6fe21f162a4c4989bea(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <wclark2-4E4650.22034617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Then you have clear evidence that the 3,000 pages of data and analysis > > > in the IPCC report are wrong? Please share it with us, rather than these > > > stupid National Enquirer type headlines. > > > > > > > The rats are abandoning the ship; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > > dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021801331_pf.html > > So he quits for another post? Just like Sarah Palin, eh? I didn't hear > you refer to her as a rat. Does your wife know about your fascination with and desires for Sara Palin. Some would classify you as a stalker.
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 18:17 In article <wclark2-3A4185.16474918022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > >> > > >> 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. You are worse than a politician.
From: Jim Lovejoy on 18 Feb 2010 18:58 BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote in news:MPG.25e6fa627f3fc83989be4(a)news.giganews.com: > In article <SLKdnelMqMxdT-HWnZ2dnUVZ_sJi4p2d(a)nventure.com>, > nospam(a)devnull.spam says... >> >> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote in >> news:MPG.25e6607b46d44dee989bda(a)news.giganews.com: >> >> > In article <727b5345-da6d-4a98-a229-44c8c6f6a940 >> > @a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... >> >> > >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> There are lots of climatologists in the world. The huge majority >> >> of them don't work at East Anglia Univ., and had nothing to do >> >> with the research that's been discredited or called into question. >> >> Atmospheric scientists have been studying this issue since the >> >> late '70s. The research you refer to probably represents a >> >> fraction of 1% of all their findings. >> > >> > What were all of these "climatologists" promoting in the mid to >> > late 70's? >> >> If you mean what was the majority opinion of those climatologists, it >> was global warming. >> > > No, it was the coming of the next ice age. Nobody was predicting any > warming at all. You are about as wrong as it is possible to be. Far from "Nobody" predicting warming, papers in the scientific literature predicting warming outweighed those predicting cooling by 7 to 1. Here's an reference to an outline of a paper examining the scientific literature of the '70s. http://www.noaaworld.noaa.gov/scitech/sep2008_scitech_4.html Look especially at item 4. Six times more articles discussing potential warming influences than cooling influences. Or maybe you'd rather go to the article itself, maybe not since it was published by the American Meteorological Society. Either way here it is. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf See also the conclusion: During the period 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling papers, 19 neutral and 42 warming. If you want to hide behind "late 70's", it's doesn't look any better for your contention, because from '75-'79 there were only 2 papers for global cooling verus 29 for global warming. Finally, watch out. Claims that the '70s were a time of belief in globel cooling are often supported by quote mined sitations like the following used by both Inhofe and former energy secretary Schlesinger (from a 1972 National Science Board report) 1972 National Science Board report as saying: "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...leading into the next glacial age" What they don't mention is that the paper went on to say: However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. Quite a different viewpoint than what Inohofe and Schlesinger would have you believe. In any case, your contention that "Nobody was predicting any warming at all." is shown to be completely wrong. As an honorable man, I'm sure that you'll publically retract it. Regards, Jim Lovejoy
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 19:14
In article <cLWdnQFOpOa5SeDWnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)nventure.com>, nospam(a)devnull.spam says... > > You are about as wrong as it is possible to be. > > Far from "Nobody" predicting warming, papers in the scientific literature > predicting warming outweighed those predicting cooling by 7 to 1. > > Here's an reference to an outline of a paper examining the scientific > literature of the '70s. > > http://www.noaaworld.noaa.gov/scitech/sep2008_scitech_4.html > > Look especially at item 4. Six times more articles discussing potential > warming influences than cooling influences. > > Or maybe you'd rather go to the article itself, maybe not since it was > published by the American Meteorological Society. Either way here it is. > > http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf > > See also the conclusion: > During the period 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling > papers, 19 neutral and 42 warming. > > If you want to hide behind "late 70's", it's doesn't look any better for > your contention, because from '75-'79 there were only 2 papers for global > cooling verus 29 for global warming. > > Finally, watch out. Claims that the '70s were a time of belief in globel > cooling are often supported by quote mined sitations like the following > used by both Inhofe and former energy secretary Schlesinger > (from a 1972 National Science Board report) > 1972 National Science Board report as saying: > "Judging from the record of the past interglacial > ages, the present time of high temperatures > should be drawing to an end...leading into the next > glacial age" > > What they don't mention is that the paper went on to say: > > However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has > already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the > near future will follow a different path. > > Quite a different viewpoint than what Inohofe and Schlesinger would have > you believe. > > In any case, your contention that "Nobody was predicting any warming at > all." is shown to be completely wrong. > > As an honorable man, I'm sure that you'll publically retract it. All of the news reports on air and in the newspaper were on the subject of the coming ice age. If anything is to blame it is the MSM. |