Outstanding. If I’d gotten that sort of reply on page one, I wouldn’t have – indeed, couldn’t have – kept asking.
No one had ever suggested the IPPC reports? Yikes.
GIGO, I take it back, you’re an idiot. 
You really have no knowledge about science and scientists, do you? :dubious:
Claiming that a scientist is committing fraud is a lot more than “just” a claim. It’s vitriolic in itself. It’s akin to claiming that a teacher is a pedophile, that a customs officer is smuggling drugs or that a police officer is taking bribes. Fraud and lies are incompatible with science just as bribes are incompatible with police work or pedophilia is incompatible with teaching children. Any honest scientist who is accused of fraud, falsification of data or anything like that will be incensed. It’s not possible to make such claims without the scientist perceiving it as vitriolic.
ETA: A scientist caught in scientific fraud will lose her/his job and will most probably never work as a scientist at a recognized university again. That’s a fact.
Back to our regularly scheduled brazilian peppered mastermind freak show.
You jest here, but I had to apply TOWP’s reply into the Gobbledygooker 2.0, it came with the translation that: “My work is done, time to punch my time card at the troll factory!” 
I had to add a patch to the software mentioning that when in the past I compared the probabilities of smoking causing disease with the likelihoods of the IPCC predictions, I linked to the predictions of the IPCC and the most likely ones, to the troll himself. That he claims now that he is unaware of it is not surprising at all.
Must we do this?
I posted your earlier quote about how, “at its simplest,” falsification would require “besides not warming, it would cool down to levels like on the 70’s”:
Your it-won’t-cool-down-to-'70s-levels prediction seems incompatible with the IPCC prediction of actual, y’know, warming: the latter would presumably be falsified by mere “not warming” over the specified period – let alone by cooling to '80s levels rather than '70s levels – but while you linked to the latter, you gave the former as your answer.
That’s why I ask for clarification. I believe I now know Rhythmdvl’s position, because he hasn’t named multiple ones, but I still don’t know yours: is it that – as you said – besides not warming, it won’t cool down to levels like on the '70s? Or is it that – as per the IPCC – warming will occur over the specified decades at the specified rate?
Good. Are you going to shut the fuck up now?
<looks up>
Never mind.
If you’d posted that before GIGO popped in, I suppose I would’ve been done.
As I said, I’ve now learned Rhythmdvl’s prediction – and I thank him for his clarity. I still don’t know GIGO’s: is it, as he now implies, the statement he linked to? Or is it the one he posted as his own answer to the question? I don’t want to be in a position where the IPCC prediction fails to come to pass, and I mention that fact to GIGO, and GIGO replies, “What is that to me? You’ve copy-and-pasted my prediction about the '70s levels; why mention this, which doesn’t falsify that?”
To make things just a bit easier:
Hey GIGO, if you have to oversimplify things (and because the Fifth Assessment Report isn’t out yet), do you accept the IPPC Fourth Assessment Report’s conclusions and predictions?
I assume you’ve read more than one volume, but to keep with the oversimplification, do you stand by the Summary for Policymakers?
OWP: are you aware that the Assessment Reports are a synthesis of the current state of the science as it was in 2007, and that improvements and refinements are continuing to be made (advances in computer and climate science are resulting in improvements to the work done to generate the FAR), eventually culminating in the Fifth Assessment Report, which will likely have different predictions along with detailed explanations of how/why those predictions differ from the Fourth Assessment Report?
Naturally.
Of course, I’m glad to show once again yet another layer of stupidity from TOWP, I have already told him that I defer to the scientists, and as the context has shown hundreds of times, that is were I point at.
Also idiotic, his pathetic 70’s demand when I already mentioned is not important, lets stick to what the scientists say. (Fat chance that he will punch the time card on this and work with the climategate issue.)
So. That might explain how a scientist accused of fraud might respond to his accusers (by no means is the vitriol a necessity), but that’s not what we’re talking about here. To use your analogy, contrast these two statements:
A) Joe is a pedophile
B) You are a pedophile
B would excuse a vitriolic defense, though, again, by no means is the vitriol a necessity. A is completely different.
Are you suggesting that companies who sell things like wind powered generators are not using climate change as one of their selling points? You don’t think that is worth billions to them and they’d really like to see governments take the position away from existing fossil fuel based energy towards them? You don’t think they’d be finding ways to dispute any evidence to the contrary showing that climate change might not be true? They do have a vested interest. They lobby. It is not on the scale of those in the fossil fuel industry because they aren’t as established, but it is there. Ignoring it is, or saying it isn’t important is just sticking your head in the sand.
The last oil company I worked for wasn’t disputing climate change, btw. It was actively working to find ways to cut its carbon output. Whether you think that is an exception, I don’t know.
As the context is that we know **who **is making the big lie here, this is once again a case of false equivalency.
For clarity: you’re officially dropping your “At its simplest, the future would show that, besides not warming, it would cool down to levels like on the 70’s as the current evidence shows what the temperature should be with no human made CO2 in the atmosphere” test, to instead defer to the scientists who predict further warming as per the link?
It never was my official test to begin with, and so we reach stupid layer #220.
To clarify further, it is not my test because we got there thanks to your “debating”, we got into more and more improbable predictions to make you happy, as I said before, it was going to be very unlikely that you would see those temperatures soon, like Joe Bastardy claimed we would recently, and yes, he failed.
The moronic thing here is that you still think that that prediction was wholly mine when it was the result of the demands of what it could be considered to be a petulant child that is pretending to debate.
It’s funny-you’ve spent untold numbers of words on this board-talking about GD specifically-over the years going over the evidence, continuously, meticulously, and (it seems to me) rather dispassionately. Of course, when things shift to the Pit then the tone is going to necessarily change, duh. Complaining about your tone in this particular subforum is the last refuge of scoundrels it seems.
I’d like to take a roll call of people whom you have convinced, actually. The overall tally likely will lean heavily in your direction, if for no other reason than that you have 10x as many cites as they do (wait, 10 times 0 = 0, doesn’t it? :D).
And who would that be? I was answering elucidator’s contention that one group is in it for money and not to be trusted because of it. BOTH groups are in it for the money. ONE of those groups just has more resources to throw at their side of the argument (that they are not winning their argument kind of throws off the contention that things like elections are won by the one with the most money, but that is beside the point). I’m saying that using who is spending money for their cause is a lousy way to determine who is correct. What it does say is something about their motivations.
Its seldom that simple, Ooze.
But do a short thought experiment. Imagine you have two scientific researchers seeking grants for important research. Both are moderately well respected in their field. And each has a more or less plausible line of inquiry they wish to pursue. One of them would like to pursue a line of research that may prove global warming is not caused by fossil fuel use, the other line of research is likely to have the opposite result.
Which, do you think, is more likely to be funded?
I’m not surprised that nobody wants to take my bet about Climategate never being discussed.
Assbackwards idiots will preach and lecture for thousands of posts, but they won’t lift a finger to actually read the emails, much less understand the complicated issues and stories involved.
After two years of watching the faithful deny deny deny ANY wrongdoing, any hint of bad behavior, any foul at all, it’s pretty fucking obvious they are not science or fact based. A reasonable person would simply admit that yeah, they fucked up, and got caught. Let’s make sure this problem is fixed.
But the true believer insists there is no problem.
Like this latest batch of releases. The believer already KNOWS there is nothing there. He doesn’t need to read anything.
Ignorance, it’s everywhere