Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: Jim Lovejoy on 18 Feb 2010 21:53 BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote in news:MPG.25e7a1f42cfa0318989bfa(a)news.giganews.com: > 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. > > O gee! You accidentally deleted the earlier discussion, where I specifically said *climatologists* and you claimed "Nobody was predicting any warming at all." Strange that! If I didn't know better I'd claim you were being dishonest. Let me state again "As an honorable man, I'm sure that you'll publically retract it." Or maybe you don't think of yourself as honorable. Your choice. (restored content) >>> 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.
From: Jim Lovejoy on 18 Feb 2010 21:54 William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in news:wclark2-322D09.19504118022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: > In article <MPG.25e7a1f42cfa0318989bfa(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > See what I mean, Jim? I'd rather start out with the assumption that the person I'm responding to is honest. If I'm wrong, he'll demonstrate it himself. And it will be a lot more credible than if I *claim* he's dishonest.
From: Jim Lovejoy on 18 Feb 2010 22:01 William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in news:wclark2-E847FA.19482218022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: > 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, I've got to disagree with you here. If they were "skeptics first and foremost" they'd be just as skeptical of claims that dispute global warming as of claims that support it. In actual fact, when we get to the denial side of the spectrum, no fact, no matter how well established, works as evidence for global warming, and any fact, no matter how weak, how debunked, or how disputed, that disputes global warming is accepted. >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. Or skeptical >They get whatever comes their way. >
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 22:12 In article <X_KdnVQrGeb4YODWnZ2dnUVZ_scAAAAA(a)nventure.com>, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in > news:wclark2-322D09.19504118022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: > > > In article <MPG.25e7a1f42cfa0318989bfa(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > See what I mean, Jim? > > I'd rather start out with the assumption that the person I'm responding to > is honest. If I'm wrong, he'll demonstrate it himself. And it will be a > lot more credible than if I *claim* he's dishonest. When you have been around here a while, you will be left in no doubt on that one.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 22:14
In article <9ZudnUiK64O6YuDWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)nventure.com>, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in > news:wclark2-E847FA.19482218022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: > > > 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, > > I've got to disagree with you here. > > If they were "skeptics first and foremost" they'd be just as skeptical of > claims that dispute global warming as of claims that support it. > > In actual fact, when we get to the denial side of the spectrum, no fact, no > matter how well established, works as evidence for global warming, and any > fact, no matter how weak, how debunked, or how disputed, that disputes > global warming is accepted. Indeed, "skeptics" is really the wrong word. they are not skeptical, they are absolutely certain. They have a pre-determined position, based on their political ideology, that simply does not allow for the possibility of AGW. Evidence and data be damned. > > >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. > > Or skeptical Agreed. |