Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:57 On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > 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? nothing has accelerated since 96 -- bill-o
From: Moderate on 23 Feb 2010 08:17 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-2DF2BD.19380022022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > 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$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> > >> > Blaming FoxNews is the strawman argument. >> > >> Classic Clarkism. > > Well, it isn't as if any of you gets your opinion from an educated study > of the data, is it? Now it is the same British newspapers you have > derided so often over the years. It'll be free mailers on the mailbox > next. I suspect Mike has spent a lot more time studying climate data than you have.
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 08:47 In article <4mHgn.8302$ND2.2766(a)newsfe05.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > 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. Well, one thing is clear, and that is that science is not your forte. On the other hand, getting suckered by manufactured hysteria on isolated and minor incidents such as happen all the time in a research field, seems to be more your style.
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 08:49 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$OX4.51506(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org > > wrote: > > > >> On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > >> > >> > > You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not > >> > > global > >> > > warming is valid, correct? > >> > > > >> > And whether global warming is valid has nothing to do about whether any > >> > particular way of dealing with it is optimum. > >> > > >> > Other than the obvious that IF global warming is valid, puting your > >> > fingers > >> > in your ears and chanting "nha nha can't hear you" is not optimum. > >> > >> that IF becomes larger every day as we see what shoddy science is behind > >> such claims > > > > But you don't, because you wouldn't know "shoddy science" unless Fox > > news told you. > > Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall > said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and > mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical > mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it > was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, > because the errors undermined the study's conclusion > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract > -siddall You don't think this happens all the time? That is why the exercise is called "research", and why we have peer reviewed scientific journals. If we knew all the answers, as you wingnuts clearly think you do, then none of it would be necessary.
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 08:50
In article <hm0kha$g0b$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-2DF2BD.19380022022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <7ugdmrFrfqU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message > >> news:hluu9g$p3v$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > >> > > >> > 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. > > I suspect Mike has spent a lot more time studying climate data than you > have. Wrong! Go stand in the corner. |