From: William Clark on
In article <7uip87F456U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:

> "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-r
> >> >> etr
> >> >> 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.

Actually, you had no point to prove.
From: William Clark on
In article <hm1iei$6qo$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-ED8D5F.10364323022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <hm0mr7$k8a$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
> > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> The cites have been previously posted. You persist in ignoring them.

There you go - right on cue with his usual "you find the cites" excuse.

So, you don't actually have a single cite for this BS.

Just like clockwork.
From: William Clark on
In article <hm1ish$7ci$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-80C8A4.14011723022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <7uicbtFlqaU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is none more suckered here than you.
> >
> > Very clever - now back into the corner.
>
> Looks like it is Clark who is backed into a corner.

Really - from the man who can never actually find a cite .
From: William Clark on
In article <7uipb9F4veU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:

> "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.

Not absorbent enough.
From: William Clark on
In article <hm1ign$6tg$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
"Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:

> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> news:7uic9jFlf5U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> >
> > Clark, you have nothing as usual. All bluster, all the time.
>
> Tru dat.

Irony alert!
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver