Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 08:50 In article <wuHgn.8306$ND2.2000(a)newsfe05.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > No it is not - at least by any one other than the denialists, who have > > > > a > > > > financial stake in convincing everyone that the emperor has no > > > > clothes. > > > > The fact remains that the quibbles that heave been blown into > > > > mountains > > > > are just that - minor quibbles. The main predictions and conclusions > > > > remain, in spite of what a certain hysterical section of the media > > > > would > > > > have us believe. > > > > > > What "major prediction" in this area has come to be...and they have > > > been making them for 40 years now. Name one that has happened. > > > > That eight different global warming models indicate the current > > accelerated global warming? > > nothing has accelerated since 96 Really? Oh, my.
From: Moderate on 23 Feb 2010 08:54 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-7924BF.08500323022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hm0kha$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$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> >> > >> >> > Blaming FoxNews is the strawman argument. >> >> > >> >> Classic Clarkism. >> > >> > Well, it isn't as if any of you gets your opinion from an educated >> > study >> > of the data, is it? Now it is the same British newspapers you have >> > derided so often over the years. It'll be free mailers on the mailbox >> > next. >> >> I suspect Mike has spent a lot more time studying climate data than you >> have. > > Wrong! > > Go stand in the corner. Well he comes across as being much more knowledgeable on the subject.
From: Moderate on 23 Feb 2010 08:56 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-55F6E3.08491023022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7ugdjiFqt3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall >> said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and >> mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical >> mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after >> it >> was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a >> correction, >> because the errors undermined the study's conclusion >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract >> -siddall > > You don't think this happens all the time? That is why the exercise is > called "research", and why we have peer reviewed scientific journals. If > we knew all the answers, as you wingnuts clearly think you do, then none > of it would be necessary. Time and time again we see instances of no peer review performed on AGW 'science.'
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 10:36 In article <hm0mr7$k8a$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-55F6E3.08491023022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <7ugdjiFqt3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > >> Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall > >> said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and > >> mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical > >> mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after > >> it > >> was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a > >> correction, > >> because the errors undermined the study's conclusion > >> > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retr > >> act > >> -siddall > > > > You don't think this happens all the time? That is why the exercise is > > called "research", and why we have peer reviewed scientific journals. If > > we knew all the answers, as you wingnuts clearly think you do, then none > > of it would be necessary. > > Time and time again we see instances of no peer review performed on AGW > 'science.' Really? I am sure you cite these "time and time again" incidents of "no peer review". Please do - and don't try to palm us off with your usual "you can find them yourself" BS.
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 10:37
In article <hm0mm3$jv2$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-7924BF.08500323022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <hm0kha$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. > > Well he comes across as being much more knowledgeable on the subject. You would have to have a glimmer of knowledge on the topic to make a call like that. You fail. |