Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: Moderate on 2 Mar 2010 06:24 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-5C3558.19545001032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hmheeo$dgr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:e3601d5d-61dd-4dda-befa-ee93ab8a19a7(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> On Mar 1, 12:31 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> > >> > news:clark-E63C85.11305601032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > >> > >> > >> > > In article <7v265iFpu...(a)mid.individual.net>, >> > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in >> > >> message >> > >>news:clark-2D0495.09414101032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > >> > In article <MPG.25f58754bb4eb8a4989...(a)news.giganews.com>, >> > >> > BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> In article <clark-BE9104.07594701032...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >> > >> >> state.edu>, cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... >> > >> > >> >> > In article <4b8ba5d2$0$12442$bbae4...(a)news.suddenlink.net>, >> > >> >> > "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> > >> >> > >news:495e3abc-6246-4cee-a8d9-32378b265f8d(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups. >> > >> >> > >com. >> > >> >> > > .. >> > >> > >> >> > > Find me one climatologists who says his model is absolute. >> > >> > >> >> > > ************************************************** >> > >> > >> >> > > Al Gore, William Clark. >> > >> > >> >> > 0 for 2 again. Neither of us is a climatologist, neither claims >> > >> >> > the >> > >> >> > models to be "absolute". >> > >> > >> >> > Sigh. >> > >> > >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803 >> > >> >>/ >> > >> >> A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html >> > >> > >> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487042313045750920909241403 >> > >> >>4 >> > >> >> 2.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection >> > >> > >> >> Billy it appears that the walls are crumbling. >> > >> > >> >> The question now becomes when were the "errors" introduced and >> > >> >> how >> > >> >> deep >> > >> >> are they now. >> > >> > >> > Again, simply more denialist screaming from the friends of the >> > >> > right. >> > >> > Both these rags have been firmly lodged on that side since day 1. >> > >> > Why >> > >> > should anyone expect any different take from them? >> > >> > >> And more alarmist screaming from you. >> > >> > > Where? >> > >> > Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN's climate panel to >> > reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an >> > increase >> > in the number of tropical storms. >> > >> > The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change >> > (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since >> > 1970 >> > was probably linked to global warming. >> > >> > It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as >> > Hurricane >> > Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, >> > both >> > in >> > 2005. >> > >> > The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms >> > over >> > the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled. >> > >> > The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats >> > of >> > global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy >> > secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity. >> > >> > However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, >> > paints >> > a >> > very different picture. >> > >> > It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just >> > part >> > of >> > a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been >> > recorded, each followed by a decline. >> > >> > Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict >> > that >> > the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the >> > frequency >> > of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100. >> > >> > It does, however, suggest that when tropical storms do occur they could >> > get >> > slightly stronger, with average windspeeds rising by 2-11% by 2100. A >> > storm >> > is termed a hurricane when wind speeds exceed 74mph, but most are much >> > stronger. A category 4 or 5 hurricane such as Katrina generates speeds >> > in >> > excess of 150mph. >> > >> > "We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC," >> > said >> > Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government's National >> > Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report. >> > >> > He added: "There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change >> > but, >> > in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a >> > decrease >> > in frequency and a small increase in severity." Landsea said he >> > regarded >> > the >> > use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore's book as "misleading". >> >> I assume this is from Newsmax or some equally credible news outlet. >> The IPCC predicted in 2007 an increase in coastal storm severity, but >> not frequency. >> >> **************************************************** >> >> Maybe I misread this part of the article: >> >> > Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modeling to predict >> > that >> > the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the >> > frequency >> > of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100. >> >> It looks like the article agrees with the IPCC report. > > Ssshhh . . .you'll spoil his day :-) We know you don't read any cites. Now you are responding without reading the posts.
From: Carbon on 2 Mar 2010 20:12 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:24:15 -0600, Moderate wrote: > We know you don't read any cites. Now you are responding without > reading the posts. I love the smell of irony in the evening.
From: Moderate on 3 Mar 2010 14:01 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b8db787$0$4880$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:24:15 -0600, Moderate wrote: > >> We know you don't read any cites. Now you are responding without >> reading the posts. > > I love the smell of irony in the evening. Clark is the one who doesn't do his homework and yet he accuses everyone else of failing to do theirs. It is an ironic pattern. When Clark attacks someone you can guarantee it stems for his own failings.
From: William Clark on 3 Mar 2010 15:53 In article <hmmbn2$msk$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4b8db787$0$4880$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:24:15 -0600, Moderate wrote: > > > >> We know you don't read any cites. Now you are responding without > >> reading the posts. > > > > I love the smell of irony in the evening. > > Clark is the one who doesn't do his homework and yet he accuses everyone > else of failing to do theirs. It is an ironic pattern. When Clark attacks > someone you can guarantee it stems for his own failings. Really? From where I'm standing I see someone who can neither follow nor sustain a line of discussion, but just runs out from behind Mummy's petticoats from time to time to shout insults at the big boys.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 4 Mar 2010 16:18
On Mar 1, 7:58 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > In article > <49640620-185e-45a4-b255-9302e7050...(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > On Mar 1, 5:19 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > > state.edu> wrote: > > > In article <7v2rfuFpo...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:e3601d5d-61dd-4dda-befa-ee93ab8a19a7(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Mar 1, 12:31 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > > > > > >news:clark-E63C85.11305601032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.... > > > > > > > In article <7v265iFpu...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > > > > > >> message > > > > > >>news:clark-2D0495.09414101032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > >> > In article <MPG.25f58754bb4eb8a4989...(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > > >> > BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> In article <clark-BE9104.07594701032...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > > > >> >> state.edu>, cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > >> >> > In article <4b8ba5d2$0$12442$bbae4...(a)news.suddenlink.net>, > > > > > >> >> > "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >> >> > >news:495e3abc-6246-4cee-a8d9-32378b265f8d(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegro > > > > > >> >> > >ups. > > > > > >> >> > >com. > > > > > >> >> > > .. > > > > > > >> >> > > Find me one climatologists who says his model is absolute. > > > > > > >> >> > > ************************************************** > > > > > > >> >> > > Al Gore, William Clark. > > > > > > >> >> > 0 for 2 again. Neither of us is a climatologist, neither claims > > > > > >> >> > the > > > > > >> >> > models to be "absolute". > > > > > > >> >> > Sigh. > > > > > > >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/733 > > > > > >> >>2803 > > > > > >> >>/ > > > > > >> >> A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html > > > > > > >> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575092090924 > > > > > >> >>1403 > > > > > >> >>4 > > > > > >> >> 2.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection > > > > > > >> >> Billy it appears that the walls are crumbling. > > > > > > >> >> The question now becomes when were the "errors" introduced and > > > > > >> >> how > > > > > >> >> deep > > > > > >> >> are they now. > > > > > > >> > Again, simply more denialist screaming from the friends of the > > > > > >> > right. > > > > > >> > Both these rags have been firmly lodged on that side since day 1. > > > > > >> > Why > > > > > >> > should anyone expect any different take from them? > > > > > > >> And more alarmist screaming from you. > > > > > > > Where? > > > > > > Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN's climate panel to > > > > > reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an > > > > > increase > > > > > in the number of tropical storms. > > > > > > The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > > > > > (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since > > > > > 1970 > > > > > was probably linked to global warming. > > > > > > It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as > > > > > Hurricane > > > > > Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, > > > > > both > > > > > in > > > > > 2005. > > > > > > The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms > > > > > over > > > > > the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled. > > > > > > The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats > > > > > of > > > > > global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy > > > > > secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity. > > > > > > However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, > > > > > paints > > > > > a > > > > > very different picture. > > > > > > It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just > > > > > part > > > > > of > > > > > a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been > > > > > recorded, each followed by a decline. > > > > > > Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict > > > > > that > > > > > the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the > > > > > frequency > > > > > of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100. > > > > > > It does, however, suggest that when tropical storms do occur they could > > > > > get > > > > > slightly stronger, with average windspeeds rising by 2-11% by 2100. A > > > > > storm > > > > > is termed a hurricane when wind speeds exceed 74mph, but most are much > > > > > stronger. A category 4 or 5 hurricane such as Katrina generates speeds > > > > > in > > > > > excess of 150mph. > > > > > > "We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC," > > > > > said > > > > > Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government's National > > > > > Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report. > > > > > > He added: "There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change > > > > > but, > > > > > in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a > > > > > decrease > > > > > in frequency and a small increase in severity." Landsea said he > > > > > regarded > > > > > the > > > > > use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore's book as "misleading". > > > > > I assume this is from Newsmax or some equally credible news outlet. > > > > The IPCC predicted in 2007 an increase in coastal storm severity, but > > > > not frequency. > > > > ====================== > > > > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044158.ece > > > > Another one of Murdoch's stable. Used to be such a great newspaper. Pity. > > > I have some fool of a textbook that proposes to argue both sides of > > the environmental debate. It is not unused in education, BTW. IT does > > not argue empirically at all, but rather makes claims about what > > interest is behind what group. Totally meaningless and absolutely > > unscientific. Who owns a publication has absolutely nothing at all to > > do with the validity of published data. Of course, as we know, the > > left notoriously draws conclusions from pure speculation and calls it > > sceince..and whether anyone else does it or not is irrelevant to that > > fact, and we can watch Maddow and Olbermann tonight for examples of > > this if you wish, and thus no one on the left is in any position to > > assail any one else's credibility in this area. At the very worst, > > anyone else is no worse than you! > > What in God's name are you driveling about? So you really can't see the relationship between your "Murdoch's stable" comment and my response? You know what? I believe you! It's that Oxford education at work! I |