🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:11:23 -0700, Billy wrote:

> 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.

The reason why Shell Oil and British Petroleum financed the creation of 
the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, one of the 
premier CAGW propaganda creators in the world, is because they make more 
money if there are legal restrictions on carbon. 

Same way pot dealers can't make money if pot were legal.