🚀 go-pugleaf

"Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message 
news:wildbilly-C82A66.22112304042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> 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