🚀 go-pugleaf

"Chom Noamsky" <beaver@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:jli83d$id$1@dont-email.me...
> 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.