Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 10:56 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-713E48.19362422022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > 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$OX4.51506(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > You understand that taxes have nothing to do with whether or not >> >> > > global >> >> > > warming is valid, correct? >> >> > > >> >> > And whether global warming is valid has nothing to do about whether >> >> > any >> >> > particular way of dealing with it is optimum. >> >> > >> >> > Other than the obvious that IF global warming is valid, puting your >> >> > fingers >> >> > in your ears and chanting "nha nha can't hear you" is not optimum. >> >> >> >> that IF becomes larger every day as we see what shoddy science is >> >> behind >> >> such claims >> > >> > But you don't, because you wouldn't know "shoddy science" unless Fox >> > news told you. >> >> Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall >> said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and >> mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical >> mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after >> it >> was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a >> correction, >> because the errors undermined the study's conclusion >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract >> -siddall > > You really don't know anything about science, do you? This happens all > the time, and this is not a central plank of the IPCC data, anyway. > > Just one more opportunity for you wingnuts to try to throw the baby out > with the bathwater. No, just more mud on the face of the IPCC.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 10:57 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-2DF2BD.19380022022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7ugdmrFrfqU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message >> news:hluu9g$p3v$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> > >> > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> > news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> >> In article <ATxgn.75238$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. I've derided? More classic Clark deflection.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 10:57 "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$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> >> > >> >> > Blaming FoxNews is the strawman argument. >> >> > >> >> Classic Clarkism. >> > >> > Well, it isn't as if any of you gets your opinion from an educated >> > study >> > of the data, is it? Now it is the same British newspapers you have >> > derided so often over the years. It'll be free mailers on the mailbox >> > next. >> >> I suspect Mike has spent a lot more time studying climate data than you >> have. > > Wrong! > > Go stand in the corner. LOL! What a tool.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 10:58 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-0756B9.10371823022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hm0mm3$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$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Blaming FoxNews is the strawman argument. >> >> >> > >> >> >> Classic Clarkism. >> >> > >> >> > Well, it isn't as if any of you gets your opinion from an educated >> >> > study >> >> > of the data, is it? Now it is the same British newspapers you have >> >> > derided so often over the years. It'll be free mailers on the >> >> > mailbox >> >> > next. >> >> >> >> I suspect Mike has spent a lot more time studying climate data than >> >> you >> >> have. >> > >> > Wrong! >> > >> > Go stand in the corner. >> >> Well he comes across as being much more knowledgeable on the subject. > > You would have to have a glimmer of knowledge on the topic to make a > call like that. You fail. Clark, you have nothing as usual. All bluster, all the time.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 10:59
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-64CEFF.08473123022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <4mHgn.8302$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. There is none more suckered here than you. |