🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 02:25:00PM -0700, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 7:02 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:50:34AM -0500, Bill Ward wrote:
> >>On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:19:02 -0400, Uncle Steve wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:11:42AM -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?
> >>>
> >>>I said no such thing.  Fraud is fraud, and it doesn't matter which
> >>>scientific dicipline is undermined by it.  Sociologists who fudge their
> >>>numbers are as reprehensible as physicists who fake theirs.
> >>>
> >>>>Seems you're not believable.
> >>>
> >>>I don't aspire to be believable.  I prefer to be entertaining.
> >>
> >>So far, you're neither.  Try again?
> >
> >Hell no, you're probably too stupid to get my jokes.  For that you'd
> >require culture and good breeding, and I've seen no sign of either
> >from you.
> 
> Snob.

Working on it, but I remain burdened with competence and the ability
to sense reality, at least on those rare occasions when posters here
write something coherent.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

-- 
"Following has never been easier"
	-- The Onion