# I hereby pit the gang of hypocritical deniers "debating" GIGObuster **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 5, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281 "2011-09-05T16:32:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/201 "2011-09-09T20:54:00Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > An unsurprising response from a wilfully ignorant individual like yourself, i.e. no response on the actual substance. Responding to the substantive question might expose your ignorance to yourself. So tell me Brazil, do you like gladiator films? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/202 "2011-09-09T20:54:13Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Point fail. Lol, another stunning rebuttal. ---
**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:** [September 9, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/203 "2011-09-09T20:57:09Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So tell me Brazil, do you like gladiator films? Has he ever seen a man naked? ---
**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:** [September 9, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/204 "2011-09-09T20:59:35Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > No, I shifted a long time ago. From “oh, he seems to have honest questions…” to "ah, he’s a denier. Let me stick with it for a few more posts, maybe he isn’t … no, wait, he is. No, I’m referring to the bit where you started in with all the crazy talk about cigarettes and ALL-CAPS tax dodges, and I explained that the same reason I don’t take Gigo seriously is the same reason I get those answers right, and you shifted over to saying it wasn’t as bad as you’d thought – suddenly figuring that I’m only intentionally ignorant on only one point, given that I treat Gigo the same way I treat everybody else. Where in the _‘maybe he is, maybe he isn’t’_ spectrum did that little two-step fall? ---
**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:** [September 9, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/205 "2011-09-09T21:01:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Just as I suspected, it is just because you say so, in real life there was no specific reason, we are getting there, but it depends on the kind of cancer. That’s my point. I don’t need to know the specific reason why it happens; I just need to know that it happens. > [@](#): > > That’s nice, you did it with the preponderance of evidence, not with just a 10:20:30 question and you followed the advice of the medical experts. > > Why are you not following the advice of climate experts? I heard the medical experts making falsifiable predictions. I haven’t heard falsifiable predictions from the climate experts. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/206 "2011-09-09T21:42:48Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Are you fucking insane? The reason I wouldn’t give my kid a cigarette is _ **because** _ I could spell out falsification criteria when explaining why I think they cause cancer; that’s _ **how** _ sure I am that they cause cancer. GIGO can’t do that for his predictions; I can for mine. Great! Let’s hear these falsifiable criteria. I’d also like you to compare them to those involved in the basis of global warming and explain to us why you think they are superior. ---
**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:** [September 9, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/207 "2011-09-09T21:47:09Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That’s my point. I don’t need to know the specific reason why it happens; I just need to know that it happens. Using logic, not that you will, one should realize that for that one would still have to rely on experts to do so. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I heard the medical experts making falsifiable predictions. I haven’t heard falsifiable predictions from the climate experts. A lie, as you even acknowledged that they have done so in the past with the data of today. Your overall point was that they can not do so for the future, so you have to be honest with yourself too. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/208 "2011-09-09T22:42:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, I’m referring to the bit where you started in with all the crazy talk about cigarettes and ALL-CAPS tax dodges, and I explained that the same reason I don’t take Gigo seriously is the same reason I get those answers right, and you shifted over to saying it wasn’t as bad as you’d thought – suddenly figuring that I’m only intentionally ignorant on only one point, given that I treat Gigo the same way I treat everybody else. > > Where in the _‘maybe he is, maybe he isn’t’_ spectrum did that little two-step fall? Oops, sorry, no, I figured you for an ignorant fuck before that. You’re analogous to those who fought against saying smoking caused harm, you’re pretty much the same as the truhters, birthers, and whatever -ers are out there. There’s a shit-ton of money out there feeding you lines and misinformation, also similar to the tobacco situation. You’re not getting any of the cash, of course. Maybe cheaper fuel and energy costs for the time, though at the price of other people’s lives. It’s the blood on your hands that makes you different from the truthers and birthers. Yes, I get that it’s tenuous and distant, but it’s blood nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/209 "2011-09-09T23:32:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You are pretending to a parity that does not exist. He’s got buttloads of valid citation, simply calling them “his” cites and dismissing them because he dismisses “yours” doesn’t get it. > > Oh, and what **GIGO** said. I repeat my humble request. you give one straight question and I give you one straight answer and then we switch. ---
**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:** [September 10, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/210 "2011-09-10T00:00:20Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I repeat my humble request. you give one straight question and I give you one straight answer and then we switch. A good, the condiment for the roast is back, we needed more! ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/211 "2011-09-10T00:40:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > A good, the condiment for the roast is back, we needed more! Nothing like web-cojones for a guy who can’t answer a question that doens’t include the phrases “it’s a denier guy/website” or “it’s been debunked, just read MY cite (while not reading others’)” ---
**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:** [September 10, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/212 "2011-09-10T00:47:27Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Nothing like web-cojones for a guy who can’t answer a question that doens’t include the phrases “it’s a denier guy/website” or “it’s been debunked, just read MY cite (while not reading others’)” Nah, everyone can see how deluded you are even on that point. I already explained that you still continue to ignore that I do check cites before dismissing them, you still need to cite what the heck do you think is new from the denier cites you brought. ---
**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:** [September 10, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/213 "2011-09-10T01:12:15Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Are you fucking insane? The reason I wouldn’t give my kid a cigarette is because I could spell out falsification criteria when explaining why I think they cause cancer; that’s how sure I am that they cause cancer. GIGO can’t do that for his predictions; I can for mine. > > Great! Let’s hear these falsifiable criteria. I’d also like you to compare them to those involved in the basis of global warming and explain to us why you think they are superior. Well, when I say I think they cause cancer, it’s because I believe that you can take two sufficiently large groups of significantly similar folks and – upon making sure all else is equal aside from the cigarette smoking – cancer will be more prevalent in the group that smokes cigarettes. If pressed for details about that falsifiable prediction, I’d naturally spell out exactly what I mean by _“sufficiently large”_ and _“significantly similar”_ and so on – but the point is that I wouldn’t want my kid to smoke cigarettes _ **because** _ I’d genuinely expect such a study to show those results rather than the opposite; if cancer _ **didn’t** _ prove to be more prevalent in the cigarette-smoking group, I’d consider my prediction falsified. I was hearing that prediction from medical experts back when tobacco was still unbeaten in court. As to how it differs from predictions involving global warming, I _ **haven’t** _ been hearing climate experts likewise put themselves on the line; I only ever hear them talk about falsifiable predictions in the past tense, and only ever hear 'em say a given hypothetical result wouldn’t suffice – never what hypothetical result _ **would.** _ [QUOTE=GIGObuster] > [@](#): > > I heard the medical experts making falsifiable predictions. I haven’t heard falsifiable predictions from the climate experts. A lie, as you even acknowledged that they have done so in the past with the data of today. Your overall point was that they can not do so for the future, so you have to be honest with yourself too. [/QUOTE] Well, yeah. Global warming wasn’t really on my radar until the '90s, and since the first time I heard of it I’ve never actually heard the experts go on to make falsifiable predictions about the future; I’ve only ever heard them refer back to past predictions, in between talking in purely negative terms about what’s to come – mentioning that a given result wouldn’t suffice for falsification, but not going on to spell out what would suffice. I’ve heard other scientists look back with satisfaction while making falsifiable predictions about the future; I’ve never yet actually heard the AGW experts talk like folks who could be wrong. [QUOTE=GIGObuster] > [@](#): > > That’s my point. I don’t need to know the specific reason why it happens; I just need to know that it happens. Using logic, not that you will, one should realize that for that one would still have to rely on experts to do so. [/QUOTE] As per Moynihan’s old line about folks being entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, I suppose. If experts are looking to prove a point about cancer and cigarettes, I’ll listen as they make a falsifiable prediction and then assemble results to make their case – and the other side’s hired experts can have every chance to point out arguable flaws in proposed criteria beforehand, and to question whether the groups really _ **are** _ significantly similar apart from the cigarette-smoking variable – but it’s all so that calling the shot ahead of time means the facts can then carry the day in the end. What’s the analogy to global warming? Make your case with a falsifiable prediction, giving the other side a chance to make their case if they find your terms unsatisfactory – and then let the facts carry the day. ---
**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:** [September 10, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/214 "2011-09-10T01:19:11Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Oops, sorry, no, I figured you for an ignorant fuck before that. You’re analogous to those who fought against saying smoking caused harm, you’re pretty much the same as the truhters, birthers, and whatever -ers are out there. There’s a shit-ton of money out there feeding you lines and misinformation, also similar to the tobacco situation. And yet all I ask from the _ **other** _ side is a falsifiable prediction. Give me a way to know whether you’re wrong and I’ll get down to the serious business of considering whether you’re right. All the money and misinformation _ **failed** _ to stop me from realizing the smoking-caused-harm crowd was correct; the folks looking to establish that link merely named a criterion that would’ve backfired if they’d been mistaken, and the evidence promptly won me over. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/215 "2011-09-10T01:26:52Z")
That’s the beauty of your “argument”, isn’t it? You have to wait for the future to see if a prediction was true or false. But no matter what point in the future you pick, at that point you can say “Well, it’s just historical data now. What about your prediction for the future after this? Not falsifiable, is it? Then how about you just bugger off?” It’s just a way for you to avoid admitting you’re wrong. No, the honest approach is to see how well the models fit all available data, meaning historical ones, meaning how well would they have done at predicting the present if used at various times in the past (when the present was the future - slow me down or reread it if this is confusing to you). If you are forced to conclude, however grudgingly, that the models fit the available data, then you have to conclude they’ll predict future data just as accurately. IOW, fuckin’ deal with it, dude. ---
**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:** [September 10, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/216 "2011-09-10T01:34:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, yeah. Global warming wasn’t really on my radar until the '90s, and since the first time I heard of it I’ve never actually heard the experts go on to make falsifiable predictions about the future; I’ve only ever heard them refer back to past predictions, in between talking in purely negative terms about what’s to come – mentioning that a given result wouldn’t suffice for falsification, but not going on to spell out what would suffice. I’ve heard other scientists look back with satisfaction while making falsifiable predictions about the future; I’ve never yet actually heard the AGW experts talk like folks who could be wrong. Glad to see you acknowledging at least that you are just looking at personal experience and not history. > **[Gilbert Plass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass)** > > Gilbert Norman Plass (March 22, 1920 – March 1, 2004) was a Canadian physicist who in the 1950s made predictions about the increase in global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the 20th century and its effect on the average temperature of the planet that closely match measurements reported half a century later. > Plass worked most of his life as a physicist in the United States. He graduated from Harvard University in 1941 and earned a PhD in physics from Princeton University in 1947. He... > [@](#): > > From 1956 onwards he published a series of papers on the topic, partly based on advanced calculations of the absorption of infrared radiation, and he made use of early electronic computers. Plass predicted that a doubling of CO2 would warm the planet by 3.6°C, that CO2 levels in 2000 would be 30% higher than in 1900 and that the planet would be about 1°C warmer in 2000 than in 1900. In 2007 the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report estimated a climate sensitivity of 2 to 4.5°C for CO2 doubling, a CO2 rise of 37% since pre-industrial times and a 1900-2000 warm-up of around 0.7°C.[1][3] [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@](#): > > Meanwhile the level of CO2 in the air kept rising, indeed faster than anyone had expected. In this essay we have seen how, ever since the late 1950s, an increasing number of experts predicted that effects on climate would become clearly visible around the year 2000. They were right. As the 21st century began, not only was the global temperature soaring in a way never seen before, but field evidence showed that the expected feedbacks were kicking in. The world’s plants were taking up more CO2, but their capacity to absorb was waning. Warmer oceans were absorbing less CO2, and gas was seen bubbling from melting Arctic tundra.(61) In sum, global warming was leading to more greenhouse emissions, which would lead to more warming… and so forth. Around 2008 some scientists began to warn that these changes were coming on faster than the international panels had predicted. > > Also as predicted only sooner, the world was beginning to suffer historically unprecedented heat waves, droughts, floods and storms. The sea level was rising while mountain glaciers, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and Arctic sea ice melted back, all at accelerating rates. Important ecosystems from alpine meadows to coral reefs were showing signs of stress. For the scientists, as one of them remarked, “Seeing their own predictions come true has been a frightening experience.”(62) > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > As per Moynihan’s old line about folks being entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, I suppose. If experts are looking to prove a point about cancer and cigarettes, I’ll listen as they make a falsifiable prediction and then assemble results to make their case – and the other side’s hired experts can have every chance to point out arguable flaws in proposed criteria beforehand, and to question whether the groups really _ **are** _ significantly similar apart from the cigarette-smoking variable – but it’s all so that calling the shot ahead of time means the facts can then carry the day in the end. > > What’s the analogy to global warming? Make your case with a falsifiable prediction, giving the other side a chance to make their case if they find your terms unsatisfactory – and then let the facts carry the day. Already given, the only thing you showed all this time was just willful ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/217 "2011-09-10T02:03:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nah, everyone can see how deluded you are even on that point. > > I already explained that you still continue to ignore that I do check cites before dismissing them, you still need to cite what the heck do you think is new from the denier cites you brought. That’s even worse. You mean you read them and still go back to your clichés? ---
**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:** [September 10, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/218 "2011-09-10T02:07:13Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > That’s even worse. > You mean you read them and still go back to your clichés? No, it means that one looks to see if it was the same old, same old. Indeed it was. You are still not getting do you? You are even wrong on assuming I did not take a look, so drop the misleading and lying sources and look for better ones. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/219 "2011-09-10T02:14:09Z")
[Let me first say that I am highly concerned about climate change. It is not correct to call it global warming because the earth has been getting cooler in the last decade.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14238105&postcount=1) There’s that “concern” thing again. And another one joins the fight. It’s like the internet version of a SLAPP suit. Overwhelm them with bullshit and they’ll give up out of frustration. Their problem is that most people on this site have long ago recognized their tactics and can see through them. I have to wonder why they have chosen the 1998 talking point. That one is so easy to debunk, as it has been dozens of times. You surely must have something better than that to work with, mustn’t you? I know “Climategate” turned out to be a popcorn fart for you after you were certain that it was the smoking ICBM, but 1998? _Really?_ ---
**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:** [September 10, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/220 "2011-09-10T02:30:33Z")
**Lamar Mundane** , as Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer54) said, you can trace the origin of the myth to Bob Carter. > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/33/xvMmPtEt8dc)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct false scientific information on the internet. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the "Who I am" video or channel trailer). > > Feel free to post. The only rules are : > > DON'T... > 1)... > [@](#): > > This video also looks at whether other planets are also warming, and an Internet myth that NASA is now attributing warming to the sun. In this video I examine the importance of sources The reach of this cut and copy point spread so much in the denialosphere that it stretches credulity for a poster to claim that he figure it out by himself, specially after the stunt of claiming that he got the idea independently thanks to a UN climate report\*… that reports on the warming trend, he used an out of context quote that compares the warmest years and from that he claims that he got the idea. Sad really. Unless he was an UN climate worker that obscure source would not had been looked at by the average bloke, most likely he got it also from a denier source that misrepresented the quote. \*And swallowing also the “they call it climate change now” myth. > **[Global warming vs climate change](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)** > > \There have long been claims that some unspecificed [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=12)