🚀 go-pugleaf

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. 

Yes, you did. You replied to a post that accused the CAGW frauds of 
lying, and you excused their actions by saying that climate science is a 
new science. 

Which isn't even true and in no way excuses the lack of integrity. 

Maybe you meant to say that they weren't lies, the people who were wrong 
were just utterly incompetent. 

> 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.

I can see that. I hope that one day your aspirations are realized. 

Keep trying.