🚀 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.  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?