Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: assimilate on 24 Feb 2010 00:42 On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > Certainty, not quite, evidence free, hardly. My opinions come from > > digging into the matter, not just listening to the sound bites on the > > stele. > > Uh huh. Anyway, I have posted stats about average life expectancy and > total cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP. You apparently find the > numbers inconvenient. no I find them superficial. You have grasped on to 2 straws to make your case and you cling to them fervently. It is you that doesn't want to hear why your stats don't mean much. -- bill-o
From: Moderate on 24 Feb 2010 08:00 "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$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark-80C8A4.14011723022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article <7uicbtFlqaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> There is none more suckered here than you. >> > >> > Very clever - now back into the corner. >> >> Looks like it is Clark who is backed into a corner. > > Really - from the man who can never actually find a cite . Stop projecting Clark. You are the one who pretends they weren't posted. Maybe you should read one.
From: BAR on 24 Feb 2010 08:30 In article <clark-55F6E3.08491023022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > In article <7ugdjiFqt3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > > news:clark-4DFDB6.16401722022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > In article <ATxgn.75238$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. Jones and Mann know all of the answers, just ask them. The climate issue went from research to political and it wasn't the politicians who turned it political it was the "scientists" who made it political. Once it became political the politicians seized the climate issue and did what politicians do and figured out how to tax it. The whole climate issue is political regardless of what you say, what the politicians say and what the "scientists" say. The UK MET's office offer to have a do-over but still hanging onto the old data is a bit funny. It is akin to we didn't screw up but, we will do it over again. The biggest problem the UK MET office has now is that they want to use UEA's CRU to perform the do over. UPenn and UEA's CRU should shutdown their climate research organizations for the good of science. The work product from both organizations will always be looked upon as having being manipulated, this will go on far into the future. Reputation is important and these two organizations have completely and totally lost their academic, scientific and public reputations.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 24 Feb 2010 08:54 On Feb 23, 5:20 pm, "John B." <johnb...(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. Really? I'll bet you both polar ice caps are still there. What do you base the intensity of storms response on? Last year was pretty quiet. Seems to me there is a high pressure cell sitting over north america during hurricane season that deflects the hurricanes the last few years. If global warming gave us that, all I can say is THANKS!
From: William Clark on 24 Feb 2010 08:56
In article <MPG.25eef3f8c09dffa2989c56(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-55F6E3.08491023022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > 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-ret > > > ract > > > -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. > > Jones and Mann know all of the answers, just ask them. > > The climate issue went from research to political and it wasn't the > politicians who turned it political it was the "scientists" who made it > political. Once it became political the politicians seized the climate > issue and did what politicians do and figured out how to tax it. Made political by those who opposed it on grounds of perceived cost to them. > > The whole climate issue is political regardless of what you say, what > the politicians say and what the "scientists" say. The UK MET's office > offer to have a do-over but still hanging onto the old data is a bit > funny. It is akin to we didn't screw up but, we will do it over again. > The biggest problem the UK MET office has now is that they want to use > UEA's CRU to perform the do over. Data is data - and what instruments say is the starting point you cannot fudge or deny. There are eight or more independent models based on different sets of data, and the funny thing is they all point to exactly the same trends. > > UPenn and UEA's CRU should shutdown their climate research organizations > for the good of science. The work product from both organizations will > always be looked upon as having being manipulated, this will go on far > into the future. Reputation is important and these two organizations > have completely and totally lost their academic, scientific and public > reputations. You know absolute zero about science. You don't even know that Mann is at Penn State, not UPenn, for God's sake. You accuse others of making this a political issue, and thn you adopt a position based solely on politics. Where I come from, that is called hypocrisy. Give it upa nd move on - you are making an idiot of yourself with this. |