Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 22 Feb 2010 17:08 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <ATxgn.75238$OX4.51506(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org > wrote: > >> On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: >> >> > > You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not >> > > global >> > > warming is valid, correct? >> > > >> > And whether global warming is valid has nothing to do about whether any >> > particular way of dealing with it is optimum. >> > >> > Other than the obvious that IF global warming is valid, puting your >> > fingers >> > in your ears and chanting "nha nha can't hear you" is not optimum. >> >> that IF becomes larger every day as we see what shoddy science is behind >> such claims > > But you don't, because you wouldn't know "shoddy science" unless Fox > news told you. Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
From: MNMikeW on 22 Feb 2010 17:10 "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message news:hluu9g$p3v$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> In article <ATxgn.75238$OX4.51506(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org >> wrote: >> >>> On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: >>> >>> > > You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not >>> > > global >>> > > warming is valid, correct? >>> > > >>> > And whether global warming is valid has nothing to do about whether >>> > any >>> > particular way of dealing with it is optimum. >>> > >>> > Other than the obvious that IF global warming is valid, puting your >>> > fingers >>> > in your ears and chanting "nha nha can't hear you" is not optimum. >>> >>> that IF becomes larger every day as we see what shoddy science is behind >>> such claims >> >> But you don't, because you wouldn't know "shoddy science" unless Fox >> news told you. This is a classic strawman argument, designed to hamper >> progress towards dealing with the real issues. > > Blaming FoxNews is the strawman argument. > Classic Clarkism.
From: Carbon on 22 Feb 2010 17:19 On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:29:49 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4b812a95$0$5125$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:04:49 +0000, assimilate wrote: >>> On 20-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Inhofe has said repeatedly that global warming is "the biggest hoax >>>> ever perpetrated against the American people." >>> >>> He is not speaking of the climate at all, he is speaking of the >>> politically driven tax the wealthy agenda of the IPCC. >> >> "Global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American >> people." -- Sen. James Inhofe, 2003. > > And seeing how much mud the IPCC has on it's face now he might be right. Inhofe is like a Creationist who every now and then forgets to say "intelligent design."
From: Carbon on 22 Feb 2010 17:22 On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:20:30 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <4b827115$0$4891$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:49:36 -0500, BAR wrote: >>> In article <4b81f556$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:02:46 +0000, assimilate wrote: >>>>> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Inhofe has said repeatedly that global warming is "the biggest >>>>>>>> hoax ever perpetrated against the American people." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He is not speaking of the climate at all, he is speaking of the >>>>>>> politically driven tax the wealthy agenda of the IPCC. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American >>>>>> people." -- Sen. James Inhofe, 2003. >>>>> >>>>> exactly, the hoax part is the whole Carbon Tax regime that would >>>>> "solve all our problems" not to mention the exaggerated threats à >>>>> la Gorical. >>>> >>>> You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not >>>> global warming is valid, correct? >>> >>> You understand that taxing carbon will not stop the natural cycle of >>> warming and cooling that the planet has gone through for the last >>> couple of billion years? >> >> You're certain that any proposed solution will have no discernible >> effect, are you? How would that be? > > Yes. > > I am. And therein lies the problem. There isn't enough evidence for you to be certain, and even if there was you wouldn't understand it.
From: Carbon on 22 Feb 2010 17:27
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:32:59 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4b827115$0$4891$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:49:36 -0500, BAR wrote: >>> In article <4b81f556$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:02:46 +0000, assimilate wrote: >>>>> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Inhofe has said repeatedly that global warming is "the biggest >>>>>>>> hoax ever perpetrated against the American people." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He is not speaking of the climate at all, he is speaking of the >>>>>>> politically driven tax the wealthy agenda of the IPCC. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American >>>>>> people." -- Sen. James Inhofe, 2003. >>>>> >>>>> exactly, the hoax part is the whole Carbon Tax regime that would >>>>> "solve all our problems" not to mention the exaggerated threats à la >>>>> Gorical. >>>> >>>> You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not >>>> global warming is valid, correct? >>> >>> You understand that taxing carbon will not stop the natural cycle of >>> warming and cooling that the planet has gone through for the last >>> couple of billion years? >> >> You're certain that any proposed solution will have no discernible >> effect, are you? How would that be? > > Unless everyone is on board (China,India,ect) it wont do much. I agree with that, and I also think attempts to reduce carbon emissions are doomed to failure. Any scheme to reduce emissions will cost money, giving a competitive economic advantage to those who ignore it. As a species we would rather devour our environment than learn to live within it. |