Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: Carbon on 22 Feb 2010 17:29 On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:00:14 +0000, assimilate wrote: > You really should dig deeper, you seem to stop at the surface of all > your argumentation. Should I try for smug, evidence-free certainty, like you?
From: William Clark on 22 Feb 2010 19:33 In article <a3017451-c593-446e-87d9-c9fff70811bf(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 22, 4:42�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > In article <3Xxgn.76283$OX4.5...(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimil...(a)borg.org > > wrote: > > > > > On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > The evidence suggests that the effect is significant, and is > > > > swamping the natural cycle to unprecedented levels. > > > > > the <cough, cough> evidence is being called into question. The "proposed" > > > solutions look worse than the "problem." > > > > No it is not - at least by any one other than the denialists, who have a > > financial stake in convincing everyone that the emperor has no clothes. > > The fact remains that the quibbles that heave been blown into mountains > > are just that - minor quibbles. The main predictions and conclusions > > remain, in spite of what a certain hysterical section of the media would > > have us believe. > > What "major prediction" in this area has come to be...and they have > been making them for 40 years now. Name one that has happened. That eight different global warming models indicate the current accelerated global warming?
From: William Clark on 22 Feb 2010 19:33 In article <4b8303a7$0$30935$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:02:46 +0000, assimilate wrote: > >>>>> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Inhofe has said repeatedly that global warming is "the biggest > >>>>>>>> hoax ever perpetrated against the American people." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> He is not speaking of the climate at all, he is speaking of the > >>>>>>> politically driven tax the wealthy agenda of the IPCC. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American > >>>>>> people." -- Sen. James Inhofe, 2003. > >>>>> > >>>>> exactly, the hoax part is the whole Carbon Tax regime that would > >>>>> "solve all our problems" not to mention the exaggerated threats à > >>>>> la Gorical. > >>>> > >>>> You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not > >>>> global warming is valid, correct? > >>> > >>> You understand that taxing carbon will not stop the natural cycle of > >>> warming and cooling that the planet has gone through for the last > >>> couple of billion years? > >> > >> You're certain that any proposed solution will have no discernible > >> effect, are you? How would that be? > > > > Yes. > > > > I am. > > And therein lies the problem. There isn't enough evidence for you to be > certain, and even if there was you wouldn't understand it. And if there was, he would still deny it anyway.
From: William Clark on 22 Feb 2010 19:36 In article <7ugdjiFqt3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <ATxgn.75238$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 You really don't know anything about science, do you? This happens all the time, and this is not a central plank of the IPCC data, anyway. Just one more opportunity for you wingnuts to try to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
From: William Clark on 22 Feb 2010 19:38
In article <7ugdmrFrfqU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "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. Well, it isn't as if any of you gets your opinion from an educated study of the data, is it? Now it is the same British newspapers you have derided so often over the years. It'll be free mailers on the mailbox next. |