I hereby pit the gang of hypocritical deniers "debating" GIGObuster

The BBQ Pit
1

GD thread.

So come on down,

Magiver
brazil84
The Other Waldo Pepper
Blake
ralph124c

[et. al]

GIGO is far to much of a gentleman to pit this gang of obnoxious assholes, even tho they so richly deserve it, so I’ll do him the favor. If you want the cites and such, go back and read the original thread; this one has a different purpose. It typically starts with them throwing out some questionable accusation, weak weasely nitpick or such; GIGO will provide a cite showing that they are wrong; they come back, often with the same exact accusation on the exact same point, and GIGO shoots them down again, and rinse repeat. God what a bunch of obtuse dickheads. GIGO deserves a commendation or something for his patience if nothing else-he’s a better man than I on that score.

And don’t get me started with the crass, ironic, and utterly unreflective hypocrisy. e.g. Magiver:

“in one ear and out the other. You might as well be Al Gore’s shadow.”

Or hit-and-run poster johnsevans

“No matter I fully understand that the cognitive dissonance that resonates with the ‘true believers’ can not ever be intellectually bested…so much for science - the main piller of which is looking for flaws in evidence not hailing agenda based opinion as unassailable fact”

Unbelievable. They seem so worried about one type of conspiracy (the alleged one of the climate scientists and their “hidden agenda”), but the other type of conspiracy (that of the fossil fuel companies and their media shills) doesn’t seem to worry them at all, nor does the mere prospect of having all of our coastal cities flooded out in a 100 years. Nevermind that the consequences of the latter would completely outweigh the “consequences” of the former (and note that if substantive climate change laws are passed-with teeth-we also get to wean ourselves off of foreign fuel sources in the process as an added bonus).

So here’s to you, you gang of frothing unquestioning knuckle-dragging toadies for your corporate and media masters, both those who have been paid-both here and elsewhere-yes this Pitting isn’t limited to the Dope-and those who are too dumb and nonintrospective to realize just how much of a gang of tools (& fools) they are and have been played for. Here’s to you and your by-the-playbook castings of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, clumsily executed as they are (since all you need is to impress like-minded and weak-minded individuals, and that isn’t hard). Here’s to our economies ruined by your asshattery as our cities flood, our climates both local and global are FUBARed and our food supplies with them, and the living hell which will be the legacy that our children will have to live with, all because willful morons like you insist on defending a philosophy which has utterly failed us (in more ways than just this one), and will continue to fail us, and has delayed any substantive action up to now, perhaps for good as we may have passed the point of no return. Congratulations all the fuck around, as you most certainly richly deserve any and all condemnations forthcoming present and future.

2

It’s hard to accept them as being “unquestioning”, when there view is one of the sceptic. Their saying “Whoa, slow down”, questioning an enormous weight of opinions to the contrary.

How is it that this matter of science has taken on such religious fervor? I find it odd. And I do not deny that man has probably affected the global climate. The question for me are the degree that man has done so, what we can do about it, and what we should do about it, given the opportunity costs.

3

To heck with that, let’s pit GIGO! Talk about obnoxious! I mean, many’s the time I’ve wanted to take part in such a debate, but GIGO hogs the whole conversation. Got all the facts, figures, citations, in a huge fecking pile of facts and info. All that is left for a moderately informed hippy like me is to come in and say “Yeah, what GIGO said!”

And you’d think he’d get tired of it all, but no, he comes in every time! Patient, calm, relentless, he simply rolls in with his fork-lift piled up with charts, figures and analysis and dumps them on his opposition like crushing a bug with the encyclopedia.

And he cannot be stopped! He is a citation delivery device, a huge, unstoppable machine of fact and logic! A GIGOnaut! How is fair debate possible when he’s right, knows he’s right, and won’t shut up about it! How is fair debate even possible unless the stupid have an equal chance!

He should have some sort of handicap, kinda even things out. Let’s say that GIGO cannot participate in such debates unless he can show proof that he has just downed three shots of Everclear and taken a couple of solid bong hits. Of course, we will need someone to verify the validity of the bong hits, to assure us that it is some serious chronic, and not some Laredo Ditch Weed, or El Ropo.

I am sure a volunteer can be found.

4

It’s not the science of the issue, it’s the politics. If they can delay any measures for their lifetimes plus one second they’ll be perfectly content, because there is no way that anybody is going to tell them that a buttload of (their) money has to be spent, power production will decline, vehicles cannot weigh 6,000 pounds for personal use, and mom and dad got to live a whole lot better than they did. By denying it they can continue on as usual.

5

Unquestioning? My primary objection to GIGO was that, whenever he’d say a given amount of data wasn’t enough to falsify the predictions, he’d refuse to answer when asked what amount of data would be enough.

You’re calling me “hypocritical” for acting the same way in this instance as I do in all others: questioning those who make predictions, asking what could hypothetically falsify those predictions. (And it was like pulling teeth to even get an unsatisfactory answer out of the guy; he still refuses to name anything like a minimum change in temperature by the date of his choice, but after the better part of a week he finally signed on for When The Scientists Say It’s Not Warming.)

He’s great at posting cites about what has happened – but for predictions about what will happen, he wants a blank check on falsification criteria.

6

Oh for Merriam-Webster’s sake, man !

7

The deniers of the science are the ones that maintain a religious fervor on this.

It is interesting to notice that there are connections also to the same people that deny evolution.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/global_warming_deniers_creatio.php

Add to that the connections to the old machinery of doubt that with the help of industry for decades delayed any action on many issues by denying the scientific evidence regarding the effects of tobacco smoking, acid rain, ozone layer depletion by CFCs, and many others and you get most of the current sources of the deniers of the science behind AGW.

http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/merchants_of_doubt_hc_104

If there is religion in all of this, sure it is not coming from the scientists when the deniers come back with previously debunked information, forever and ever Amen…

8

See what I mean? Right there, you have it! Barely a hundred words and *three *citations! No fair!

9

First of all my overall point stands, TOWP original reason why he was asking this question(s) was based on a misunderstanding and a misquote at best.

He should find a source that justifies his question, but as I already found out he swallowed already hook line and sinker denialist political points like the “we call it climate change now” So the evidence, as the continuous questioning never ends, demonstrates a person with an agenda already made.

When he ignored requests to point at statisticians or researchers that agree with him that it is cooling and therefore we should ask questions why that is so, he is continuing to frame the issue by ignoring that researchers do not do the dishonest moves that he is doing to claim that organizations like the UN are not reporting a warming trend.

There is no acknowledgement that the narrow focus that originated the questions was based on a misunderstanding or denialist propaganda, that then leads to the realization that since the questioner continuously attempts to ignore the big picture or does not drop the debunked point then how do you think a good scientific answer can be given or accepted?

When a scientist like Brickmore points at the big picture and the warming levels already calculated from the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere the point was that the answer has to include the big picture and the need to drop the silly myth that it has not warmed since 1998. When TOWP ignores that, one has to conclude that there is no interest from him on even learning why a line of questioning needs to have support to begin a serious scientific inquiry.

In the end TOWP put himself into a corner when in the attempt to not having to site clearly denier sources he had to pretend that he had figured out these “show stopper” of questions your own. The evidence tells me that it is just boiler plate bullshit already made before by deniers. There is nothing original coming from him.

10

Additionally, accepting the reality of the science entails embracing policy approaches that are completely antithetical to the rugged-individualist, government-sucks, Randian attitudes they (are trained to) spout. Presenting facts and analysis is simply not enough to get the recipient to reject or even question an entire worldview. You might as well ask them to deny their religion.

And it lets them continue to make inane cracks about Al Gore.

11

You assume that an intoxicated Gigo would no longer have an intellectual edge over the hypocrites. But is that a scientifically sound assumption? What would it take to falsify your hypothesis? Hunh? Hunh? What would it take to falsify it? Hunh? Hunh? Falsifie Flasifie Flaashify Flaaa…(Septimus passes out after the fifth bong hit…)

12

I think that’s probably correct. But I think for many politics poisons the other side, as well. Many see it as a phenomenon that should be exploited in order to push all manner of green initiatives. And they point to all manner of natural disaster as further proof it is happening. There was an environmentalist (Scandinavian, I think) who testified to the U.S. Senate right after al Gore did a few years ago. While he agreed with Gore’s general position, he thought they he had grotesquely overblown the case. He also cautioned everyone to slow down on taking drastic action. But when a subject takes on such religious fervor, people rush to act in ways that might not be the most sensible.

13

:smack: :smack:

14

That’s perfect. “He should find a source that justifies his question”. I’m asking what could falsify your predictions, and you say it’s the question rather than the answer that calls for a source. You’re a poet.

I don’t say that it’s cooling; you say that it’s warming. I want to know what hypothetical evidence will disprove your prediction; I make no such prediction.

With a falsification criterion.

That’s exactly right. I don’t need support to ask what your falsification criteria are; I merely need to hear that you’re making a prediction.

There’s nothing hypothetically falsifiable coming from you.

15

Oh, that’s right. “I’m sooooo much more scientific than, you know, the real climate scientists, because…uh, you know, falsification. And shit.”

16

Yeah, how dare we ask scientists making predictions to make falsifiable predictions.

17

And you are a denier, there is no shame on that…

In your mind of course.

And we already established it is a loaded question, as history shows, what you guys did with Jones and Latif has to be taken into account.

Then drop the false narrowing that you are basing your questions first.

Keep living with disappointment. As pointed before, if you think your questioning is so valid you should have no trouble at all convincing a local climate researcher that you truly have a dizzying intellect.

And if you had paid attention that is not my overall point, your question is not even scientific but pseudo-scientific.

18

I’m not interested in what other people did with Jones and Latif. If you can someday criticize what I do with your falsifiable predictions, then by all means do so with gusto, if you ever make a falsifiable prediction, which seems unlikely.

What false narrowing? What narrowing, even? I’m asking you to call any shot you like, making it as broad or narrow as you see fit; tell me what results you predict – in any terms you find sufficiently free of “narrowing” – such that other results would mean the prediction turned out to be false.

My question would be the same regardless; I merely want to know what you’re predicting, complete with your falsification criteria. My “questioning” would be the same regardless of the subject.

Asking those who make predictions to make falsifiable ones? Isn’t the opposite a hallmark of pseudo-science?

19

I’m not getting this either. Gigo, can you explain the problem with his request?

20

I had a professor with a sign on his door that said “Question Authority”.

Underneath someone had written “Why?”

Regards,
Shodan