🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:02:46 -0400, 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.

Zero for three now.  Don't quit your day job.