🚀 go-pugleaf

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.