and
, last
uldn't
r a
.entire
is eh ?
just marks
ppy being
cally
The sums being paid, and the people they are paid too, are published in the Exxon-Mobil company accounts every year - Sourcewatch isn't an unbiased witness, but their claims are based on freely availalbe data, and have been confirmed by other sources.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
You do seem to be an expert on gullibility - you exhibit enough of it yourself.
The gullibility on my part which you seem to be complaining about involves having had enoguh scientific education - to a Ph.D. in physical chemistry - to equip me to read and understand some of the scientific literature on the subject. Since I've learned enough to correct some of your errors, I'm demonstrably better qualified than you are, and obviously entitled to keep on criticising your abysmal taste in documents about anthropometric global warming.
Get the physics right - for once - and I'll congratulate you rather than jeering at you, but that day seems to be a long way off.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
nt/...
ht-
That was what I was objecting to - some baseless and unjustified claim about what the poster thought that the IPCC had claimed. I was objecting to wishful thinking and baseless conjecture.
Do try and concoct your rhetorical points more carefully - that one makes the texan hick a little too visible.
Check the Indian publicians in the IEEE Transactions from the 1960's - it is an entirely non-controversial fact, and one that has nothing to go with anthropogenic global warming, so irrelevant in this context.
Weeds are opportunists; they almost always do better at exploiting disturbed environments than the vegetation that is well adapted to the environment as it used to be.
If you don't know enough about botany to find it non-controversial, your opinion isn't worth much - but the market value of John Field's opinions isn't all that high to start with.
Not all of them; and if the plants that you are trying to protect are struggling to begin with, getting rid of the weeds without getting rid of the desired plants can get to be impossible.
Incontrovertible makes a claim about the future, while non- controversial makes a claim about what is going on now. Making silly claims is Eeyre business, not mine.
You haven't shown anything of the sort, merely that you think you can get away with disagreeing with their status. In fact you've revealed yourself as dimwit by making the claim.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
entire
?marks
being
Wow, since 1990 they spent all of 19 million USD funding climate change sceptics. That pales into insignificance compared to the sums spent on AGW research. Why are you so worried about such a trifling interference? - unless of course there's more than a grain of truth in what they say.
Cheers
Ian
...
:::::most are not facts but possibilities extracted from dubious models... Anti-global warming rhetoric reminds me anti-evolution rhetoric; the (right wing) proponents claim that the theory has "holes". The alternative ("Intelligent design") has none, of course. Sure, the prayer is the best solution to all our problems.
generally
entire
?marks
being
adjustment to
-- As seen through the eyes of a bumbling fool... JF
-- Actually, if English was your first language, you\'d have realized that (in the light of your claim that: "My arguments are based on non-controversial facts ...") what I was commenting on was your less-than-factual claim that "some Exxon-Mobil lackey" dreamed up some "straw man" figures. If, in fact, I was wrong, then I\'d like to see some evidence making your statement a _fact_ instead of just another one of your worthless opinions. Will it be forthcoming? Of course not. What will follow, probably, is more of your usual self-serving, diversionary blather. --- >> and: >> >> "Lots of the electronics papers from India that I read when I was a >> graduate student were about one-transistor circuits; apparently few >> Indian universities could afford to buy two transistors back then." >> >> A botched attempt at humor (or, more likely, derision) perhaps, but >> hardly a non-controversial fact. > >Check the Indian publicians in the IEEE Transactions from the 1960\'s - >it is an entirely non-controversial fact, and one that has nothing to >go with anthropogenic global warming, so irrelevant in this context.
Quote from your link: "MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling".
Then, quote "Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done." and quote "Overall, the committee believes that Mann?s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."
This was a finding by National Academy of Sciences committee. Not exactly "fuss", isn't it?
Sorry, but that is not what I consider science.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
Well, there's the inconvenient little fact that global temperatures have not risen in the past ten years.
Thanks, Rich
Oh yeah! And MOSFETs are so cheap nowadays. Doing a concoction of them right now, debating whether to go to the final ultra-tiny layout right away or now. That would mean no realistic debugging since it's all 0201 parts and stuff. Knuckles turning white ...
Doesn't propagate to all servers, and didn't to mine. When I wrote to them about maybe letting
Smoothed HadCRUT-3 is up over the past 10 years.
Come to think of it, 10 years ago was 1999. The only cooler year afterwards was 2000. And if you think 1999 was a cool year, only 3 prior years since 1850 were warmer, with the least recent one being 1995.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Realistically, after Cuomo's tirade there is only option (2) left. Most folks that I know can't get a.b.s.e. anymore.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
The last time I had CRUT, I used "Ting" ointment. Cleared it right up!
Cheers! Rich
Who are those "most folks"? You are the only person I know of who says his ISP doesn't carry ABSE.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
Open a new thread and ask, you'll be surprised :-)
Even non-binary groups starting with alt.* have fallen almost completely dormant last year. For example alt.home.automation. Three threads in all of July and the last post was about two weeks ago . I can still get it but some ISPs have dumped all of alt*. T'is life these days.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
I have my own web site. But uploading via FTP, copying the link over etc. is a lot more cumbersome than a quick one-click attachment.
Tripod is IMHO horrid. I never click on a link with that domain in there.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
I take my life into my hands when I design with 0402's. All those production people downstairs have a lot of sharp, heavy, and hot tools.
This is an isolated 50-volt pulse into a 50-ohm load, generated by a pair of 2N7002's (like, 4 cents each) and a transmission-line transformer:
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/HV_mosfet_pulse.jpg
Our ISP, LMI in Berkeley, does it all. They comp'd me a personal FTP site since we give them a lot of business. LMI is great; they actually answer the phone, or emails, and do stuff for us.
I've used the free pic-posting sites, supload, photobucket, like that, and they're not bad.
John
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.