Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 17:32 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 23 Feb 2010 17:33 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 23 Feb 2010 17:33 In article <hm1ish$7ci$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-80C8A4.14011723022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <7uicbtFlqaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > >> There is none more suckered here than you. > > > > Very clever - now back into the corner. > > Looks like it is Clark who is backed into a corner. Really - from the man who can never actually find a cite .
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 17:34 In article <7uipb9F4veU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-D5AA12.14024623022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <7uic73Fl14U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > >> news:wclark2-2DF2BD.19380022022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> > In article <7ugdmrFrfqU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:hluu9g$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 23 Feb 2010 17:34
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! |