🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4/2/2012 4:40 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:
> 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.

So, you're not only a snob, you have an egocentric personality disorder 
as well.