# ClimateGate 2.0? Are you fucking kidding me? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 27, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243 "2011-11-27T15:39:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/121 "2011-11-29T16:00:16Z")
Daddy! Daddy! I want a one-trick pony! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/122 "2011-11-29T16:00:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Does anyone have Gobbledygook to English translation software? Luckily I have the Gobbledygooker 2.0! He is so stupid that he is telling us that the cycles masking the warming trend noticed by scientists and confirmed by the skeptics at BEST is something new. He also still thinks that by attacking me he will convince others that what the scientists are saying should be ignored. Logic is not strong with this one. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/123 "2011-11-29T16:00:50Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The point is that **GIGO** didn’t “Appeal to the Masses” any more than you did: not in the sense of committing a logical fallacy, which is what you were attempting to mock him for allegedly doing. Thank you for this well written post. I would only add that those who do not have the faintest idea what logical fallacies are, and have just a vague notion gained through a cursory glance at a website, would be well advised not to mention them, lest they be seen to be an idiot \ magellan01 \ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/124 "2011-11-29T16:02:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Luckily I have the Gobbledygooker 2.0! > > He is so stupid that he is telling us that the cycles masking the warming trend noticed by scientists and confirmed by the skeptics at BEST is something new. No, I’m saying your falsifiable prediction remains true if future cycles lead to further warming, and remains true if there’s never any further warming, and remains true if the world cools down before never again reaching current levels. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/125 "2011-11-29T16:05:32Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Count me as yet another who appreciates **GIGO** ’s posts, and his posting style. > > One needs to be persistent against the foolish arguments that keep popping up again and again and again. I like the fact that **GIGO** keeps pointing out the obvious. [Whack-a-troll!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI-Z0hr4UbQ) [NQSFW] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/126 "2011-11-29T16:07:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, I’m saying your falsifiable prediction remains true if future cycles lead to further warming, and remains true if there’s never any further warming, and remains true if the world cools down before never again reaching current levels. Of course I said no such a thing here, and I already told you before that I was not very good at the beginning or I was humoring you before, so it is important to deal with what the scientists say, the earth is warming while cycles still happen, stop being a coward and deal with what scientists say, not on what you think some bloke on the internet thinks. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/127 "2011-11-29T16:15:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course I said no such a thing here Of course you didn’t say it _ **here.** _ You said it in a previous thread, and I’ve repeatedly asked for confirmation in _ **this** _ thread that such is still your position. > [@](#): > > I already told you before that I was not very good at the beginning or I was humoring you before, so it is important to deal with what the scientists say, the earth is warming while cycles still happen, stop being a coward and deal with what scientists say, not on what you think some bloke on the internet thinks. I’m not holding you to the prediction you made “at the beginning”. I’m holding you to the one you made later, until and unless you move the goalposts again. If someone in this thread – scientist or otherwise – offers a falsifiable prediction about a specified amount of temperature change over a specified span of time, then replies I post would take that one exactly as seriously as I take yours. But since I can’t recall anyone else in this thread making such a prediction, I can’t take issue with anyone else’s; each of twenty different people could say they believe global warming is on the way, and each could well have a different falsifiable prediction in mind; I’ve just heard yours, is all. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/128 "2011-11-29T16:18:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If someone in this thread – scientist or otherwise – offers a falsifiable prediction about a specified amount of temperature change over a specified span of time, then replies I post would take that one exactly as seriously as I take yours. But since I can’t recall anyone else in this thread making such a prediction, I can’t take issue with anyone else’s; each of twenty different people could say they believe global warming is on the way, and each could well have a different falsifiable prediction in mind; I’ve just heard yours, is all. Of course that is a common property of people that willfully ignore the cites. Glad you confirmed that you are just a lazy bum that only pretends to follow the science. [TOWP is so dense that he still insists we are dealing here with my predictions, no we are not, we are dealing with what scientists said and BEST confirmed recently: cycles can mask and be used by the naive to think that warming has stopped] ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/129 "2011-11-29T16:44:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > TOWP is so dense that he still insists we are dealing here with my predictions, no we are not But my first post in this thread was a reply to _ **your** _ post – one I couldn’t have made to anyone else! I took issue with you, personally, replying to Scylla’s idea; you replied that “global warming” is a better description than “climate change”, as it shows the physical part of the issue. I couldn’t readily take issue with anyone else making that claim, but could and did take issue with _ **you** _ doing so, because last I’d heard you were saying that the world may never get any warmer – and may indeed get cooler before never warming back up to current levels – though I immediately asked for clarification, since I worried I might be mischaracterizing your position. If someone else – say, one who predicts warming in a way that _ **would** _ be falsified by a lack of warming – had made your claim, I couldn’t have weighed in as I did. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/130 "2011-11-29T16:46:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But my first post in this thread was a reply to _ **your** _ post – one I couldn’t have made to anyone else! I took issue with you, personally, replying to Scylla’s idea; you replied that “global warming” is a better description than “climate change”, as it shows the physical part of the issue. > > I couldn’t readily take issue with anyone else making that claim, but could and did take issue with _ **you** _ doing so, because last I’d heard you were saying that the world may never get any warmer – and may indeed get cooler before never warming back up to current levels – though I immediately asked for clarification, since I worried I might be mischaracterizing your position. > > If someone else – say, one who predicts warming in a way that _ **would** _ be falsified by a lack of warming – had made your claim, I couldn’t have weighed in as I did. Translation from Gobbledygooker 2.0 [sup]TM[/sup]: “Yes, I’m impotent on the matters of looking at what the actual scientists say, even with cites.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/131 "2011-11-29T16:50:28Z")
He seems to have struck the crucial question, kind of like the Titanic hitting the iceberg. If the concept of global warming cannot be falsified, it fails to meet scientific criteria for validation. This crucial fact appears to have eluded all those so-called “scientists” who are on record as asserting that the concept is valid. Quite a few of them, actually. Its a pity that our education system is so weak that we can graduate people to advanced degrees in science who cannot grasp such an essential concept. **Gigo,** do you have the means to transmit this vital fact to the scientific community, or at least that segment of the community that is operating under a delusion? Clearly, if they were aware of the crucial weakness in their theory, they would realize that the entire concept of global warming is fundamentally flawed. Who was it said that sometimes in science, an elegant and beautiful theory is destroyed by a single ugly troll? Something like that, anyway. I think it was Heisenberg. Pretty sure about that. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/132 "2011-11-29T16:50:54Z")
Waldo, you’ve confirmed that you don’t reject the science behind climate change, and have stated that you believe it is falsifiable. So, rather than continue this mindless haranguing, please go somewhere else, find a scientifically based prediction about warming, and either do or do not bring it back here for discussion. That way you get what you claim to desire, and everyone else gets a brief respite. I doubt that you will, however, because obvious troll is obvious. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/133 "2011-11-29T16:57:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > “Yes, I’m impotent on the matters of looking at what the actual scientists say, even with cites.” Your falsifiable prediction remains the same – and satisfactory – regardless of who you cite. If you predict the Yankees will win the next World Series, I don’t need you to cite anyone else’s prediction; your post, to coin a phrase, _ **is** _ the cite, and already suffices. Nor is a cite required if you predict the Yankees will either win the next World Series, or at least make the playoffs, or at least finish the season with a winning record; once you’ve relayed that falsifiable prediction, no further cite is needed. Why should this be any different? [QUOTE=elucidator] He seems to have struck the crucial question, kind of like the Titanic hitting the iceberg. If the concept of global warming cannot be falsified, it fails to meet scientific criteria for validation. This crucial fact appears to have eluded all those so-called “scientists” who are on record as asserting that the concept is valid. [/QUOTE] But I don’t claim it cannot be falsified; as Hentor says, right after your post, [QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Waldo, you’ve confirmed that you don’t reject the science behind climate change, and have stated that you believe it is falsifiable. [/QUOTE] Quite right: as per GIGO, warming wouldn’t falsify it, and neither would a no-warming plateau from this day forward, and neither would a good long stretch of cooling that never again rises back up to current levels – but some anomalous data hypothetically would. > [@](#): > > please go somewhere else, find a scientifically based prediction about warming, and either do or do not bring it back here for discussion. That way you get what you claim to desire I already have what I “claim to desire”: a falsifiable prediction about changes in temperature in years and decades yet to come. Why would I go looking for two or twenty more? If anyone else wishes to post one, I’ll gladly consider it; if no one else does, I’m already satisfied. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/134 "2011-11-29T17:08:07Z")
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper] I already have what I “claim to desire”: a falsifiable prediction about changes in temperature in years and decades yet to come. Why would I go looking for two or twenty more? If anyone else wishes to post one, I’ll gladly consider it; if no one else does, I’m already satisfied. [/QUOTE] Then shut the fuck up. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/135 "2011-11-29T17:11:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Your falsifiable prediction remains the same – and satisfactory – regardless of who you cite. We already established that this is trolling, what you need to do is explain from what ass you are pulling the idea that I’m proposing a different theory ( **the really sad thing is that in this thread we are not dealing with predictions but with already recorded data and its confirmations** ) and why it is that you are not just being a coward by avoiding the task of explaining away what the scientists are saying on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/136 "2011-11-29T17:14:32Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > My advice for climate change awareness advocates: > > 1. Give up, and retract the term global warming. You are talking about a very small increase over a very long period and it really may not be correct because of the margin of error, and even if it is the real thesis isn’t that the world is getting warmer, it’s that mankind is changing the environment in ways that will adversely affect us all. A big part of the problem is pinning down exactly what the hypothesis is. If the claim is simply that “mankind is changing the environment in ways that will adversely affect us all,” it doesn’t necessarily follow that there needs to be an immediate and drastic reduction in CO2 emissions. In the global warming debate, the hypothesis being advanced by the warmist side is multi-fold, as I understand it: (1) mankind’s CO2 emissions are causing a rise in atmospheric CO2; (2) This rise in CO2 levels will result in increased greenhouse warming of the earth; (3) The warming from step (2) will be significantly amplified by means of water vapor feedback; (4) This amplified warming will have significant adverse effects for mankind. Importantly, (2) and (3) are independent hypotheses. If (2) is established beyond any doubt, it does not follow that (3) is correct. Moreover, there is shockingly little evidence that (3) is correct. The main evidence consists of computer simulations, none of which has survived the acid test of making consistent, accurate, interesting, bona fide predictions. As far as I know, that is. How does this fit into Climategate? Well, the main lesson of Climategate is that one or more researchers on the warmist side of the debate apparently feel it’s ok to attempt to delete and suppress information to keep it out of the hands of persons they perceive as hostile to their position. If this mentality is prevalent on the warmist side, it’s reason to be all the more skeptical of what little evidence there is for (3). Since that evidence may have been filtered or otherwise cherry-picked. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/137 "2011-11-29T17:16:43Z")
Relax, **Waldo**. **Gigo** will transmit your criticism to the proper venue, and you may expect a torrent of wholehearted approval and adoration from a scientific community freed from the bonds of error. When that abject capitulation occurs, no doubt it will find its way to the intertubes, and will be available for your citation. I only hope that my pending recognition as the rightful Queen of Rumania has occured by then, that I may confer upon you the proper honors. How does “Sir Waldo, Duke of Wallachia” sound? (I’m assuming you are male, as this sort of dogged insistence, in my experience, is symptomatic of testosterone poisoning.) But, at any rate, you need only be patient a bit longer, and then the kudos and abject apologies will rain down upon you like unicorn pee. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/138 "2011-11-29T17:21:42Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Moreover, there is shockingly little evidence that (3) is correct. The main evidence consists of computer simulations, none of which has survived the acid test of making consistent, accurate, interesting, bona fide predictions. As far as I know, that is. > > How does this fit into Climategate? Well, the main lesson of Climategate is that one or more researchers on the warmist side of the debate apparently feel it’s ok to attempt to delete and suppress information to keep it out of the hands of persons they perceive as hostile to their position. If this mentality is prevalent on the warmist side, it’s reason to be all the more skeptical of what little evidence there is for (3). Since that evidence may have been filtered or otherwise cherry-picked. Of course this is pure unadulterated bulllshit, it is not only by computer simulation that scientists at NASA are confident on what the water vapor feedback is. And even the OP already showed the lies by omission the Daily Mail and others are doing with Climategate. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/139 "2011-11-29T17:23:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > what you need to do is explain from what ass you are pulling the idea that I’m proposing a different theory I’ve explained the following: that you’d previously stated that cooling short of the '70s levels – followed by no further warming, even – would be consistent with your predictions; cooling down to the '70s levels would falsify a part of them; yet _ **further** _ cooling would be required to falsify the whole thing. I asked in this thread whether that is, in fact, your prediction; I asked _ **repeatedly,** _ precisely because I realize you may currently have a different prediction in mind; if so, you’re the only one who can clarify that point. Either I’m accurately relaying your prediction or I’m not. If you’d like to point out that you’re predicting something quite different, then, by all means, please do so; if not, then I can but go by your previous words on the subject. [QUOTE=elucidator] Relax, Waldo. Gigo will transmit your criticism to the proper venue, and you may expect a torrent of wholehearted approval and adoration from a scientific community freed from the bonds of error. [/QUOTE] By “criticism” do you mean that I wholeheartedly accept Gigo’s stated falsification criteria? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/140 "2011-11-29T17:29:39Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’ve explained the following: that you’d previously stated that cooling short of the '70s levels – followed by no further warming, even – would be consistent with your predictions; cooling down to the '70s levels would falsify a part of them; yet _ **further** _ cooling would be required to falsify the whole thing. > > I asked in this thread whether that is, in fact, your prediction; I asked _ **repeatedly,** _ precisely because I realize you may currently have a different prediction in mind; if so, you’re the only one who can clarify that point. > > Either I’m accurately relaying your prediction or I’m not. If you’d like to point out that you’re predicting something quite different, then, by all means, please do so; if not, then I can but go by your previous words on the subject. Pathetic, that is not relevant and it is just evidence of your trolling, it was already pointed out that scientists already expected “steps” to appear on the warming “stairway” of AGW. That is the matter at hand here and the confirmation of the up to day data by BEST, showing that climategate was a crock and continues to be a crock. Deal with that or just continue to demonstrate what a troll and a coward you are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=8)