Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: BAR on 18 Feb 2010 19:19 In article <4b7dc51c$0$4954$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:20:49 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b7c9759$0$5107$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:18:46 -0500, BAR wrote: > >>> In article <jj2pn59q3f32b13lfaj9i0nnjes857c0sh(a)4ax.com>, > >>> bknight(a)conramp.net says... > >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > >>>>>In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>>>>nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Just for kicks, what is his desired outcome, and why? Now show us > >>>> your mind-reading capabilities Bert. > >>> > >>> Control. > >> > >> And this is different from the anti-AGW apologists, how exactly? > > > > I don't want to tax every breath you exhale! > > I see. So you don't know or care about the truth or the potential for > future devastation if the AGW alarmists turn out to be correct. You just > want the lowest possible tax rate. Bert, you are a man among men. AGW is a theory. Yes, I want the lowest taxes. Taxes are legalized theft.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:39 In article <MPG.25e790c12b2f5efc989bee(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > 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. No, we are talking about events we can control. Do you drive your car blindfold just because there is a chance that some red neck in a truck will run a red light and broadside you, and you can do nothing about it? That is beyond your control, but you sure as hell don't resign control of your car just because it is.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:41 In article <hlkctm$vtk$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-70544B.16453918022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <hlk8tf$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. Indeed - the WWF page was never a "conclusion", other than to people like you that latched onto it as your only escape. The 45 pages of Chapter 2 set up a "conclusion" on glaciers, snow, etc., but you won't have read those, will you? You have yet to prove anything, other than you are a parroting denialist hack.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:43 In article <7u5s5gFnk9U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "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/72313 > >> >> >> 86/ > >> >> >> 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! Why not try answering the question for once. You have been presented with information that shoots down your little cliche, so now, rather than respond, you have to run for cover behind whatever deflection you can find.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:44
In article <MPG.25e792841815757f989bf3(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > 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. And some would classify you as a f*****g retard - in the satirical Sarah Palin sense, of course, so you can't take offense at it. |