From: assimilate on

On 23-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)> wrote:

> > nothing has accelerated since 96
> Really? Oh, my.

Well your flustered defense of the indefensible has but that really wasn't
my point

From: assimilate on

On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> wrote:

> You know what's superficial? Saying over and over again that something
> is superficial and never once saying why.

I've stated my reasons many times, has it not sunk in yet?

From: assimilate on

On 24-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)> wrote:

> > <johnb...(a)> wrote:
> > >Never before in human history has the polar ice cap shrunk in both
> > >thickness and area as much as it has recently. Never has it melted
> > >completely in summer, as is expected this century.
> >
> > Really? �Where did you get this information?
> >
> > Did you ever hear of the medieval warming period? �
> What happened, or didn't happen, during that period is hotly disputed.
> Whatever the truth is, I don't think anyone back then was able to
> measure the area or thickness of the polar ice cap.

Then your "never before in human history" is at best an exaggeration, at
worst a lie. Human history goes back much farther than we've been able to
observe/record polar ice caps. Although, if Greenland was inhabited circa
1000AD, with viable agriculture, we can speculate that the ice pack may have
been thinner than modern times, when Greenland is still barren.

From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.25ef8ef5beed37da989c5a(a)>,
BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

> In article <clark-436614.08564524022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>, clark(a) says...
> > >
> > > 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.
> Your inability to read and comprehend is amazing.
> > >
> > > 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.
> The location of the data gathering stations is extremely important.
> Maybe they all did Mann's trick with the data?

You need to understand what "trick" means in the context of data
analysis. It simply means a short cut that utilizes part of a data set,
but provides the same answer as if you used the entire data set.
Computer time is not free.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> Good UPenn is an Ivy league school. Penn State is just another school.

But you still didn't learn enough about Mann, a scientist you were
prepared to hang, draw, and quarter on the basis of some blog article
you were told about, to know at which university he is. That establishes
once and for all your credibility to comment on any part of this issue.
It is zero.
> The scientists who put together the latest IPCC report admitted that the
> inserted items for purely political reasons.

Cite, please?
> Billy it would do you good to take a step back and review all of the
> reports since the data was released, regardless of how, from UEA. Be
> sure to think about whether you are blindly supporting the scientists or
> whether you are supporting them based upon them using sound scientific
> processes and ethics. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out if
> someone is not following process and procedure and if they are
> conducting themselves ethically.

Bertie, you would do well not to keep trying to pass yourself off as
having the first glimmer of comprehension of the science involved here,
and just admit that all you are interested in doing is passing off
political hysteria as some kind of established fact. You know absolutely
nothing about the "process and procedure" - you just continue to
embarrass yourself in public.
From: William Clark on
In article <f0obo5pndtq9302m0oelu1ceg08jeulh6p(a)>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:31:38 -0500, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
> >Good UPenn is an Ivy league school. Penn State is just another school.
> Yes, let's not confuse excellence with mediocrity.

Oh, yes, tell us all again about that "Columbia" PhD, which does not
seem to show in their doctorate records database. Perhaps you can give
us a better reference.

I am glad that you recognize Penn State as excellent. You are being a
little harsh on UPenn, though.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver