Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 25 Feb 2010 08:07 In article <Ofohn.8491$bx3.1372(a)newsfe13.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 23-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > But you don't, because you wouldn't know "shoddy science" unless Fox > > > > news told you. This is a classic strawman argument, designed to hamper > > > > progress towards dealing with the real issues. > > > > > > Please Sir Ad Hominem, you don't have the foggiest idea where I inform > > > myself, but I can assure you that television is not where I go. Anyone > > > who > > > relys on the tube for news hasn't got a clue. As far as science goes, > > > since > > > you think that fraud, data tampering and rigging the peer review process > > > isn't shoddy science, then there really is no hope for you. > > > > Well, one thing is clear, and that is that science is not your forte. On > > the other hand, getting suckered by manufactured hysteria on isolated > > and minor incidents such as happen all the time in a research field, > > seems to be more your style. > > All the manufacturing seems to have been done at the CRU Cite, please? With real facts, preferably, not some journalistic nonsense.
From: William Clark on 25 Feb 2010 08:08 In article <Kiohn.8492$bx3.5258(a)newsfe13.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 23-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > nothing has accelerated since 96 > > > > Really? Oh, my. > > Well your flustered defense of the indefensible has but that really wasn't > my point There was no discernible point.
From: BAR on 25 Feb 2010 08:32 In article <clark-49C123.08032425022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > 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. Trick has a definition in the public arena. Regardless of how the term is used in the scientific community the public thinks they are being fooled. I haven't payed for computer time in years. I can't believe that you are not using a Linux cluster, 16, 32, 64 or 128 quad processor Linux systems with 64 GB of RAM should make a nice little parallel processing system. > > > > > > > > > > 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. Mann is still going to be kicked to the curb, hung out to dry or have his resignation accepted. > > > > The scientists who put together the latest IPCC report admitted that the > > inserted items for purely political reasons. > > Cite, please? You need to keep up with current events. Do yourself a favor and read some newspapers. I have already posted links to these articles, it shouldn't be too difficult for a guy like you to find them. A basic, very basic Google Groups search will yield what you seek. > > > > 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 What you don't understand Billy is that you don't need an understanding of science to know that the scientists involved in the vast anthropogenic global warming conspiracy are corrupt. No. Toyota is going through the same thing right now. Do I need to be an automotive engineering degree or computer science degree to know that Toyota screwed up? No. Do I need a law degree to know that I am getting screwed by some law that is written which can't be understood except if I pay 8 lawyers tens of thousands of dollars to give me their opinion on it and then a judge says they are wrong. But then the congressmen who authored the legislation says that the judges interpretation is what congress's intended?
From: John B. on 25 Feb 2010 09:06 On Feb 25, 1:06 am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > On 24-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> 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. > > -- > bill-o Ok, recorded human history. You happy now?
From: William Clark on 25 Feb 2010 09:49
In article <MPG.25f0460d294fa73a989c5e(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-49C123.08032425022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > 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. > > Trick has a definition in the public arena. Regardless of how the term > is used in the scientific community the public thinks they are being > fooled. Sorry, you are simply wrong. Once again, you are projecting your layman's ignorance into a specialised field, with specialised terminology. > > I haven't payed for computer time in years. I can't believe that you are > not using a Linux cluster, 16, 32, 64 or 128 quad processor Linux > systems with 64 GB of RAM should make a nice little parallel processing > system. We need the supercomputer for the size of calculations we do. Parallel processing has its values for the simple calculations, but atomistic models are simply too big. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Mann is still going to be kicked to the curb, hung out to dry or have > his resignation accepted. Sorry, wrong again. If you can "prove" (and I know you use that word very loosely) any actual wrongdoing by him, I am sure PSU and everyone else would like to hear of it. > > > > > > > The scientists who put together the latest IPCC report admitted that the > > > inserted items for purely political reasons. > > > > Cite, please? > > You need to keep up with current events. Do yourself a favor and read > some newspapers. I have already posted links to these articles, it > shouldn't be too difficult for a guy like you to find them. A basic, > very basic Google Groups search will yield what you seek. Ah, no cite. Just like your buddy Moderate, you get caught in some outrageous and unsubstantiated claim, and then try to bluster out of it by claiming that the challengers have to find the source. It is really getting old. > > > > > > > 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 > > What you don't understand Billy is that you don't need an understanding > of science to know that the scientists involved in the vast > anthropogenic global warming conspiracy are corrupt. No. Perhaps, but you do need a modicum of IQ and reading on the topic. You seem to exhibit neither. And please substantiate your use of the term "corrupt" with cites. We need to see the "proof". > > Toyota is going through the same thing right now. Do I need to be an > automotive engineering degree or computer science degree to know that > Toyota screwed up? No. What did they "screw up" in technical terms? Is it an electronic problem, a floor mat problem, and accelerator pedal problem, or what/ Please let us and Toyota know, because they don't have the answer. You see, all you actually know about this is that they "screwed up" the response to the consumer. That has no parallel in the AGW case. > > Do I need a law degree to know that I am getting screwed by some law > that is written which can't be understood except if I pay 8 lawyers tens > of thousands of dollars to give me their opinion on it and then a judge > says they are wrong. But then the congressmen who authored the > legislation says that the judges interpretation is what congress's > intended? So you admit that you actually don't have a clue about the science of AGW - you just know that because it doesn't align with your political prejudices, it has to be wrong. |