Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 17:35 In article <7uipenF5l5U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "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-r > >> >> etr > >> >> 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. As you say, you have no response to this.
From: William Clark on 23 Feb 2010 17:36 In article <a97918b9-fb11-4e82-98ca-159c9840f054(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 4:17�pm, Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > On Feb 22, 7:33�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > <a3017451-c593-446e-87d9-c9fff7081...(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > �Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 4:42�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > > > state.edu> wrote: > > > > > In article <3Xxgn.76283$OX4.5...(a)newsfe25.iad>, assimil...(a)borg.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 22-Feb-2010, William Clark > > > > > > <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The evidence suggests that the effect is significant, and is > > > > > > > swamping the natural cycle to unprecedented levels. > > > > > > > > the <cough, cough> evidence is being called into question. The > > > > > > "proposed" > > > > > > solutions look worse than the "problem." > > > > > > > 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? > > > > About your speed I guess. The issue is hysteria. I'll grant the global > > warming, and even if so, so what? How about ice caps melting and > > cities flooding? How about accelerated increases in high intensity > > hurricanes and tornadoes? They all never happened.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > The polar ice cap IS melting. There HAS been an increase in the > intensity of hurricanes. Yes, but don't expect ol' Dino to know that.
From: Carbon on 23 Feb 2010 18:05 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:48:02 -0600, Moderate 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. Now there's a shocker.
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 18:23 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-B07174.17333423022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hm1ish$7ci$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark-80C8A4.14011723022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article <7uicbtFlqaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> There is none more suckered here than you. >> > >> > Very clever - now back into the corner. >> >> Looks like it is Clark who is backed into a corner. > > Really - from the man who can never actually find a cite . Irony alert!
From: MNMikeW on 23 Feb 2010 18:29
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-E60877.17350123022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7uipenF5l5U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark-F41B44.14041223022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article <7uic4nFklfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message >> >> news:wclark2-713E48.19362422022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> >> > In article <7ugdjiFqt3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in >> >> >> message >> >> >> news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> >> >> > In article <ATxgn.75238$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-r >> >> >> etr >> >> >> 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. > > As you say, you have no response to this. As compared to your brilliant response "Just one more opportunity for you wingnuts to try to throw the baby out with the bathwater" LOL! |