Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:45 In article <MPG.25e792386dd0e1fe989bf2(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > 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. He moved on, just like Sarah Palin did, but I didn't hear the sanctimony then.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:48 In article <7u5se0Fp7pU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7c367a86-319c-4dc0-b889-295421c86eef(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ==================================== > > You honestly think calling people skeptical of AGW "deniers" is helping your > cause? There are plenty of skeptical people who have studied the science. They are deniers because they are skeptics first and foremost, based solely on their political prejudice. Denial to them is much more important than examining the actual data - in fact they deny without even looking at the data. So they have given up any claim to be treated as intelligent or credible. They get whatever comes their way.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:48 In article <MPG.25e791fe22a23b24989bf1(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > 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? Cite, please?
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:49 In article <MPG.25e791a99c49cd26989bf0(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > 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. And still you produce not one shred of scientific evidence to support your case. This is just ridiculous.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:50
In article <cLWdnQFOpOa5SeDWnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)nventure.com>, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > 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 Do you seriously expect any of these wingnuts to read what you posted? Denial is the only thing they are interested in. |