Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 14:03 In article <7uic9jFlf5U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "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$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Blaming FoxNews is the strawman argument. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Classic Clarkism. > >> >> > > >> >> > Well, it isn't as if any of you gets your opinion from an educated > >> >> > study > >> >> > of the data, is it? Now it is the same British newspapers you have > >> >> > derided so often over the years. It'll be free mailers on the > >> >> > mailbox > >> >> > next. > >> >> > >> >> I suspect Mike has spent a lot more time studying climate data than > >> >> you > >> >> have. > >> > > >> > Wrong! > >> > > >> > Go stand in the corner. > >> > >> Well he comes across as being much more knowledgeable on the subject. > > > > You would have to have a glimmer of knowledge on the topic to make a > > call like that. You fail. > > Clark, you have nothing as usual. All bluster, all the time. Irony meter explodes . . .
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 14:04 In article <7uic4nFklfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-713E48.19362422022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <7ugdjiFqt3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > >> news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > In article <ATxgn.75238$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-retr > >> act > >> -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. Keep trying - so far you have not even made a scratch on the surface of the data. Just a lot of hysterical denialism.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 14:39 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-A3D34A.14004523022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > 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. LOL! Thanks for proving my point.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 14:41 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-D5AA12.14024623022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > 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. You're thinking of the New York Times.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 14:43
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-F41B44.14041223022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7uic4nFklfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "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-retr >> >> act >> >> -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. > > Keep trying - so far you have not even made a scratch on the surface of > the data. Just a lot of hysterical denialism. I'm afraid all the hysterics here are coming from you. |