Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 11:04 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-E5E231.08504423022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <wuHgn.8306$ND2.2000(a)newsfe05.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org > wrote: > >> On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > > > No it is not - at least by any one other than the denialists, who >> > > > have >> > > > a >> > > > financial stake in convincing everyone that the emperor has no >> > > > clothes. >> > > > The fact remains that the quibbles that heave been blown into >> > > > mountains >> > > > are just that - minor quibbles. The main predictions and >> > > > conclusions >> > > > remain, in spite of what a certain hysterical section of the media >> > > > would >> > > > have us believe. >> > > >> > > What "major prediction" in this area has come to be...and they have >> > > been making them for 40 years now. Name one that has happened. >> > >> > That eight different global warming models indicate the current >> > accelerated global warming? >> >> nothing has accelerated since 96 > > Really? Oh, my. As usual, nothing to back your blather.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 11:05 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-55F6E3.08491023022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7ugdjiFqt3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article <ATxgn.75238$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. Funny YOU seem to think you have all the answers. Had this been peer reviewed, it would not have been published in the first place now would it?
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 14:00 In article <7uicn7FnvpU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.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: > > > >> "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-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. > > Funny YOU seem to think you have all the answers. Had this been peer > reviewed, it would not have been published in the first place now would it? It was peer reviewed, but apparently by someone who knows as much about the science as you do. It is interesting that the error, once discovered, is owned up to openly. I'd like to see the day when one of you wingnuts ever does the same to the BS you litter around this ng. Anyway, the retraction does not disprove anything, since it is not known if its predictions were an over- or under-estimate of sea level changes. Sorry.
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 14:01 In article <7uicbtFlqaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "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. Very clever - now back into the corner.
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 14:02
In article <7uic73Fl14U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.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$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > >> > > >> > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > >> > news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> >> In article <ATxgn.75238$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. Glad to know that in your world, newspapers are the place where you get good scientific information. I thought they were for wrapping fish and chips in. |