🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RZ-dnXvN-MN8neTSnZ2dnUVZ5oidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:47:32 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:11:42 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:30:33 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Super Turtle wrote:
> >>>> "RLW"  wrote in message
> >>>> news:QIadnZ5kA-hjIerSnZ2dnUVZ_goAAAAA@giganews.com...
> >>>> 
> >>>> >I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually
> >>>> >know what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent:
> >>>> >runaway, nearly limitless increase in surface temperature.
> >>>> 
> >>>> >A) We know that's wrong.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >(A) does nothing to disprove (B).  Indeed, (B) is something
> >>>> >*observed*, not a matter open to debate.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The idea that if you train ratings from a given era is to be used as
> >>>> the poster child to support and prop up global warming is ridiculous,
> >>>> and that's our point all along here.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Crap science is crap science. If because something is a piece of
> >>>> junk, it thus does not prove or disprove a particular position in
> >>>> this whole debate.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The problem is this piece of junk has been put forward as a poster
> >>>> child and was used as a means to sell global warming to the public.
> >>>> 
> >>>> This all comes down to integrity, if the science community cannot
> >>>> come clean on this hockey stick, then how can we trust them?
> >>>> 
> >>>> In fact, as long as the science community continues to support and
> >>>> prop up this piece of junk science they WILL NEVER EVER get my trust
> >>>> and support.
> >>>> 
> >>>> It is amazing that the actual argument and idea being put forth here
> >>>> is that it DOES NOT matter if the hockey stick is a piece of junk, as
> >>>> long as the position it supports a supposedly true, then there's
> >>>> nothing wrong with using something that is a deception and something
> >>>> that is without merit.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sorry, that's not gonna fly, and no it's not acceptable to use
> >>>> something that is completely full of holes like Swiss cheese.
> >>>> 
> >>>> This is exactly the same reasoning that Blech was using in the recent
> >>>> fake gate affair, in which it OK to huge forged documents,
> >>>> impersonate people, and commit fraud because as long as the position
> >>>> in the end can be justified, it doesn't matter if this lies and
> >>>> deceptions along the way.
> >>>> 
> >>>> This is very simple:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Until the science community comes along and completely throws this
> >>>> hunk of garbage hockey stick thing under the bus, then that science
> >>>> community is not worthy of our trust, they're not to be trusted, and
> >>>> in fact they will NEVER get our trust.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The idea that as a group of intelligent and thinking people as a
> >>>> society we are to turn a blind eye, put our fingers and art years,
> >>>> and start screaming "la la la la" to ignore errors on truth, and a
> >>>> horrifying breach of proper science that the hockey stick represents
> >>>> is a ridiculous and position that borders on insanity.
> >>>> 
> >>>> It is exactly issues like this that of broken the trust with the
> >>>> public, and Intel that trust is restored, and until the science
> >>>> community comes out and states that that hockey stick is a big hunk
> >>>> of garbage, then there in big trouble. Some people, long and state
> >>>> well here's another graph that shows another hockey stick, I'm sorry
> >>>> that will not fly, we're talking specifically about this data, and
> >>>> using a few stupid trees and tree rings from a limited area, and that
> >>>> of also that of "hiding the decline" is simply ridiculous.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Why would I want to stand here and attempt a legitimate conversation
> >>>> with a group of people that steadfastly refuse to correct poor and
> >>>> rotten science? The hockey stick has been thoroughly been torn apart
> >>>> and it is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Corrections and faults
> >>>> have been pointed out repeatedly and with such information and
> >>>> knowledge wide available it becomes an act of WILLFUL MALICE to
> >>>> continue to support this hunk of junk and willful malice in refusing
> >>>> to correct this hunk of junk.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Again:
> >>>> These people are not be trusted, and they will NOT get our trust and
> >>>> NEVER WILL get our trust until crap like this hockey stick is
> >>>> corrected.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Super Turtle.
> >>> 
> >>> Super Turtle?  You know that Science isn't all one unified field of
> >>> inquiry, that there are several distinct provinces with not all of
> >>> them being equal in stature or maturity?  Climate Science, like
> >>> Psychology, is relatively new having also gone through some recent
> >>> changes as technology has advanced.  Distrusting all science merely
> >>> because there is still a debate over AGW seems foolish.
> >> 
> >> His point was that these guys were lying.
> >> 
> >> Your rebuttal is that it's okay to do what they're doing (lying) since
> >> climate science (which actually is a very old "science") is a new
> >> science, like psychology. I suppose if Freud can make shit up and pass
> >> it off as "truth", so can these "climate scientists", huh?
> >> 
> >> Seems you're not believable.
> > 
> > If the rest of science is as trustworthy as Steve claims, why didn't
> > they call bullshit on the climate science fraud as soon as it became
> > obvious?
> > 
> > Science requires both curiosity and integrity.  Lose one and it becomes
> > either manufacturing or fraudulence.
> 
> You have to have a desire to know the truth. That's why HVAC (air 
> conditioning?) is not a scientist, and nor is Wormley. They're advocates, 
> not scientist. 
> 
> I know I come across as angry and an apostle for the anti-CAGW claims. 
> And I am angry - angry because people who present themselves as scientist 
> are really being advocates and they keep feeding me bullshit when I ask 
> questions.* It got to be so regular that I've become convinced that there 
> is no real science behind CAGW. 
> 
> The CAGW "scientist" are what you get when you take a bunch of freshly 
> minted Ph.D.'s who can't find jobs (because of idiot spending on "Space 
> Stations" and other non-science gee-whize stupidities) and entice them 
> with money for producing pro-CAGW propaganda. It's either take the job 
> and do the fraud, or hope to become a quant for some idiot business 
> major. The unethical ones take the money. 
> 
> * It isn't just AGW, I was a real pain in the butt to my first QM prof 
> because he didn't know his stuff. He was one of these guys who recited 
> what was in the book and if you asked why he had no clue or worse, he'd 
> make stuff up. In grad school, eventually I had a prof who DID know QM 
> and could answer my questions and life was better for prof and student. 
> As a Martian I have to Grok it, and I don't grok mindless belief. 

Money. Follow the money. Who stands to gain from Global Climate Change, 
scientists who are lucky to knock down $100K/year, or companies who deal 
in fossil fuels who privatize the profits, and socialize the cost of 
clean up? You really are a Pollyanna.

-- 
E Pluribus Unum

Know where your money is tonight? 
It's making the lives of Wall Street Bankers more comfortable.


The GOP is chasing us towards a cliff called "Obama."
Vote 3rd Party