Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:42 On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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? Certainty, not quite, evidence free, hardly. My opinions come from digging into the matter, not just listening to the sound bites on the tele. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:48 On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > 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. Please Sir Ad Hominem, you don't have the foggiest idea where I inform myself, but I can assure you that television is not where I go. Anyone who relys on the tube for news hasn't got a clue. As far as science goes, since you think that fraud, data tampering and rigging the peer review process isn't shoddy science, then there really is no hope for you. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:49 On 22-Feb-2010, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> 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. they don't teach rhetoric at Oxford, it appears! :-P -- bill-o
From: Carbon on 22 Feb 2010 21:53 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:42:09 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> 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? > > Certainty, not quite, evidence free, hardly. My opinions come from > digging into the matter, not just listening to the sound bites on the > tele. Uh huh. Anyway, I have posted stats about average life expectancy and total cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP. You apparently find the numbers inconvenient. You keep saying they're wrong but haven't produced a convincing argument for why. Why don't you dig into that for a while?
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:56
On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(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. Your mad as a hatter Clark. You are of the opinion that honesty is a mere quibble? -- bill-o |