# 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:** 12
**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, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/221 "2011-09-10T02:52:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. “Misleading” and “lying”…yep, the same stuff. You read you say? I apologise for thinking the opposite. So why are your only answers “misleading” and “lying”? It’s clear that “misleading” and “lying” simply mean “I disagree”. Now, go, go. Flatter yourself thinking “he’s just an anti-science denier”…that’s always how you justify never addressing issues. Go, go. ---
**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, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/222 "2011-09-10T03:19:18Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > “Misleading” and “lying”…yep, the same stuff. > You read you say? I apologise for thinking the opposite. So why are your only answers “misleading” and “lying”? > It’s clear that “misleading” and “lying” simply mean “I disagree”. > > Now, go, go. Flatter yourself thinking “he’s just an anti-science denier”…that’s always how you justify never addressing issues. > Go, go. Nope, not doing your homework after your [binge](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/binge-eating-disorder/DS00608) or Google Vomit. The rule is (and many dopers know it is just a polite one) is that that you link and cite what you think is important, or in this case what you think is so new, I do think you already know how that will turn out. ---
**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, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/223 "2011-09-10T04:32:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, not doing your homework after your [binge](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/binge-eating-disorder/DS00608) or Google Vomit. The rule is (and many dopers know it is just a polite one) is that that you link and cite what you think is important, or in this case what you think is so new, I do think you already know how that will turn out. So now it’s not even the science, it’s a style thing. It’s nice to see that you console yourself with silly links about eating disorders, trying to be…what? cool? hip? oh-so-edgy? Apparently the biggest flaw in my arguments is using search engines and not going to a single website to find my answers. But you said you read them anyway…and still no direct, factual, science-filled answer. Cite or not, your answer would’ve been, “it’s a known denier guy/site”. What’s next? Complaining about my browser choice to avoid the real issue? My car is blue, by the way, if you need other things to complain. ---
**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, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/224 "2011-09-10T05:26:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So now it’s not even the science, it’s a style thing. It’s nice to see that you console yourself with silly links about eating disorders, trying to be…what? cool? hip? oh-so-edgy? Apparently the biggest flaw in my arguments is using search engines and not going to a single website to find my answers. > > But you said you read them anyway…and still no direct, factual, science-filled answer. Cite or not, your answer would’ve been, “it’s a known denier guy/site”. > > What’s next? Complaining about my browser choice to avoid the real issue? > My car is blue, by the way, if you need other things to complain. Meh, this is a lie, I already posted the reply by Gavin Smith showing why the Forbes blogger should be dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/225 "2011-09-10T09:34:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. I don’t speak for **Waldo** , but if these climate models were making bona fide, interesting, accurate predictions, I would not dismiss it as “historical data.” The key question is whether the prediction was made without the benefit of hindsight. i.e. was it actually a prediction? > [@](#): > > No, the honest approach is to see how well the models fit all available data, meaning historical ones, The trouble is that it’s too easy to cheat using this method either by tuning the model to fit historical data or by quietly discarding models which don’t fit. You can see that this actually happens by observing that generally speaking, simulations disclosed by the IPCC fit historical data really well – even on the range of 5 to 10 years. If this was not the result of tuning, then one would expect that most of the time, the models should be able to make reasonably accurate predictions going forward. As far as I know, this just doesn’t happen. ---
**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, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/226 "2011-09-10T13:14:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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? It sure is falsifiable, I’d reply; upon having one falsifiable prediction vindicated, I in fact _ **would** _ have another falsifiable “prediction for the future after this” ready to go. No matter what point in the future you pick, at that point I’d have (a) historical data showing I got it right, and (b) yet another shot at getting it wrong. > [@](#): > > It’s just a way for you to avoid admitting you’re wrong. It’s a way for me to keep _ **risking** _ being wrong. I only extrapolate falsifiable predictions from past data because the beauty of the otherwise useless alternative – making an _ **unfalsifiable** _ prediction – is that it lets people avoid admitting they’re wrong. > [@](#): > > 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. That’s what I do. The difference is, I do it by making falsifiable predictions; to all appearances, the AGW experts have concluded that future data will be predicted just as accurately and so no longer need to bother with hypothetical falsification. [QUOTE=GIGObuster] Glad to see you acknowledging at least that you are just looking at personal experience and not history. [/QUOTE] In the sense that, by the time I got into this, the AGW experts had apparently concluded that no further hypotheticals involving falsification were necessary; they’d disproven the folks making global-cooling predictions back in the '70s, they’d made up their minds, the science is settled, no additional warming is necessary over a plateau of any length, no amount of cooling would defy expectations, no ugly facts could slay our beautiful theory; there _ **was** _ a time for all of that, and that time has now passed. ---
**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, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/227 "2011-09-10T14:22:27Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > You can see that this actually happens by observing that generally speaking, simulations disclosed by the IPCC fit historical data really well – even on the range of 5 to 10 years. If this was not the result of tuning, then one would expect that most of the time, the models should be able to make reasonably accurate predictions going forward. As far as I know, this just doesn’t happen. > **[Curry's Hallowe'en Piece](https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/11/currys-halloween-piece.html)** > > Well, I don't think she'll be able to save the Italian Flag stuff. But she does keep a man guessing. I have read Judith Curry's Hallowe'en p... > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t think she’ll be able to save the Italian Flag stuff. But she does keep a man guessing. > > I have read Judith Curry’s Hallowe’en post Decision Making Under Uncertainty Part I . The criticism I can offer here, that the Obersteiner and Weitzmann critiques are rather less inclined to catastrophic outcomes and probably biased to the relatively near future, is of a very different sort than my critiques of the Italian flag, or others’ critiques of other seemingly baldly elementary errors. And the statement > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The net result of such a feedback loop is an overconfident assessment of the importance of greenhouse gases in future climate change. > > > > ``` > > while slyly implying an overstatement of said importance, is at least relatively unobjectionable in its literal content. We could, after all, be overconfidently underestimating greenhouse gas sensitivity as well. Now I’m reasonably convinced by James and Jules that we have the thing well bracketed, while much of the community thinks the low side is better constrained than the high side. Presumably Curry’s audience does not want to hear this sort of thing. > > Once she gets off trespassing directly on James’ turf without mentioning James (surely a faux pas among climate bloggers) and starts talking about the near term future of modeling, she seems to be channeling me. > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > If we assume that CO2 sensitivity dominates any conceivable combination of natural (forced and unforced) variability, what do the simulations actually say about 21st century climate? Well, the sensitivity range for the IPCC calculations are essentially in the same range (1.5-4.5C) that was estimated in the 1979 Charney report. And the calculations show that the warming proceeds until about 2060 in a manner that is independent of the emissions scenario. > > > > So exactly what have we learnt about possible 21st century climate from the AR4 relative to the TAR (and even relative to the 1979 Charney report) that refines our ability to set an optimal emissions target? I suspect that we are probably at the point of diminishing returns from learning much more in the next few years (e.g. AR5) from additional simulations by the large climate models of the current structural form. > > > > ``` > > Yup. > **[Chaos](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/chaos/)** > > Math without physics, is not physics. There’s yet another mathturbation post at WUWT. This one, by Andy Edmonds, argues that because weather is chaotic (in the mathematical sense), it’s… > [@](#): > > Computer models which simulate climate, do so by simulating weather. Nobody seriously expects them to get the weather right because nobody seriously maintains that weather isn’t chaotic. But predicting its long-term average and variation — the climate — is not in vain. That’s why climate models are usually repeated, doing as many “runs” as possible (within the limits of computing time), so that we can see as many weather simulations as practical and get a better handle on the long-term statistical properties — the climate. > > The logistic map is chaotic, but its long-term statistics are not. They’re stable. The real point of climate change is not the apparently random fluctuations due to the chaotic dynamics of weather, but the fluctuations of climate due to changes in the dynamics of weather. When you increase greenhouse gases and therefore inhibit heat loss, you change the dynamics — the “equations of motion” as it were — and that will change the climate. In ways that are predictable. ---
**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, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/228 "2011-09-10T14:36:01Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > In the sense that, by the time I got into this, the AGW experts had apparently concluded that no further hypotheticals involving falsification were necessary; they’d disproven the folks making global-cooling predictions back in the '70s, they’d made up their minds, the science is settled, no additional warming is necessary over a plateau of any length, no amount of cooling would defy expectations, no ugly facts could slay our beautiful theory; there _ **was** _ a time for all of that, and that time has now passed. And that is a 4 level Pinocchio lie. The best estimates show that 3 degrees centigrade of increased warming is to be expected by a doubling of the CO2, so yes, they are expecting more warming, verifications and confirmations of the progress of the changes brought by the increase of global warming gases. **The theories you have to discredit are the ones from physics** , AGW is just a result of them. > **[Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?](https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=490)** > > We are on track to double pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In assessing the risk, the above question is much more fundamental than asking how much the climate warmed over the 20th century. So what’s the answer? > [@](#): > > Far from being controversial, numerical models are used in all modern fields of science. Mathematical models are implicit in our understanding of the universe. For example, the governing equation for the gravitational effect is also ‘just a model’. In fact, it’s the very definition of a model, since we do not actually understand how gravity works. However our mathematical model of the nature of gravity has been verified through countless observations. We are quite certain that our mathematical model of gravity accurately describes the Newtonian universe. These principles are not negotiable like the tenets of social sciences or economics. They are fundamental laws. The universe doesn’t fudge fundamental laws of scale. > > Similarly, the mathematical model of the organisation of an atom; neutrons, protons, electrons, is just a model. We cannot actually look inside an atom. But the model has been verified and it holds as a fundamental certainty. > > The mathematical model of how atoms absorb and re-emit radiation in discrete energy packets and in discrete wavelengths is also a model. It also faithfully describes the universe. A whole heap of technology is built on the certainty of this model. If these models did not work, then most of the appliances in your house would also not work, including the microwave oven and the television. > > Therefore we can faithfully model how radiation passing through layers of radiative gas will be absorbed and re-emitted. There is nothing speculative about this either. This is fundamental physics and chemistry, text book material rather than brand new science. > [@](#): > > If anyone seriously thinks that our understanding of radiation is wrong, then could they please publish that alternative theory in a proper scientific journal so we can all absorb a new reality? You will need to overturn more than 100 years of physics in the process. You will also likely win a Nobel Prize for your efforts. The incentive is there. > [@](#): > > Guess what? I haven’t even talked about a 20th century thermometer reading, and we already have heaps of evidence against the safety of rapidly doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide. The matching greenhouse fingerprints in the 20th century climate record are really the final nail of evidence. If there is some study that contradicts the fundamental science, then where is it? No one has managed to find an alternative solution after decades of trying. While the skeptics will throw up the occasional vaguely set-out paper from fringe (and mostly non peer-reviewed) journals, they can not produce a set of key papers which demonstrate that doubling atmospheric chemistry has no significant effect on the climate system. And that is what they wish to prove is it not? It is certainly what they should be required to do. > > So people should ask the skeptics their own set of questions. Why have they never produced a repeatable formulation of the physics as they see it? Why have they never developed their own climate models, and performed their own model experiments? Why have they never produced their own paleoclimate reconstructions? Why have they never compiled their own record of surface temperature? Apparently, the lack of published research showing the inert nature of atmospheric carbon dioxide changes is the result of a long running, worldwide scientific conspiracy. > > But that too doesn’t stand up. With all the money supposedly at stake, the complete lack of credible research by the skeptics points to a complete inability to successfully argue their case in scientific circles. If destroying the conventional science was as easy as they suggest, the major polluters would have funded such research twenty years ago, and moved on. Again, the incentive is there, and large companies are more than capable of funding and producing credible research. But, importantly, they have not attempted to do so. ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/229 "2011-09-10T14:57:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is a 4 level Pinocchio lie. > > The best estimates show that 3 degrees centigrade of increased warming is to be expected by a doubling of the CO2, so yes, they are expecting more warming, verifications and confirmations of the progress of the changes brought by the increase of global warming gases. It’s not a lie; I genuinely hadn’t heard that prediction before. I’ve been asking you for the better part of two weeks for a falsification criterion; you’ve ducked and you’ve dodged, you’ve hurled accusations and insults, but as far as I can tell this is the first time you’ve taken a break from all of that to actually spell this out. Why didn’t you do this sooner? Why didn’t you make that post in _ **August?** _ Be that as it may: “3 degrees centigrade of increased warming is to be expected”. So if we instead get a mere 0.3 degrees centigrade of increased warming – or 0.3 degrees of _ **cooling** _ – or anything else that falls short – then the expectation won’t be verified and confirmed, but rather the opposite; just add in a deadline for observing that expected increase and you can now supply what I’ve been requesting since before this thread started. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/230 "2011-09-10T14:58:52Z")
By the way, I don’t engage with **GIGOBuster** because of his past refusal to answer a reasonable question about his position. He also has a strong tendency to respond to posts by answering arguments which haven’t been made and ignoring the actual point. I think it’s most likely because he’s just too stupid to understand the points people are making a lot of the time. ---
**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, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/231 "2011-09-10T15:56:22Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It’s not a lie; I genuinely hadn’t heard that prediction before. I’ve been asking you for the better part of two weeks for a falsification criterion; you’ve ducked and you’ve dodged, you’ve hurled accusations and insults, but as far as I can tell this is the first time you’ve taken a break from all of that to actually spell this out. Why didn’t you do this sooner? Why didn’t you make that post in _ **August?** _ I warned you already what is the result of hanging around denialist sites. It has indeed been willful ignorance. Several of the posts I made before did include a link to all the climate myths and several reported on the estimated temperature increases. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Be that as it may: “3 degrees centigrade of increased warming is to be expected”. So if we instead get a mere 0.3 degrees centigrade of increased warming – or 0.3 degrees of _ **cooling** _ – or anything else that falls short – then the expectation won’t be verified and confirmed, but rather the opposite; just add in a deadline for observing that expected increase and you can now supply what I’ve been requesting since before this thread started. And there is once again the refusal to see that we are dealing with probabilities, and lag time, the 3 degrees are likely, what is worrisome is that several researchers report that the temperature could reach 4 degrees or more, skeptical researchers go for the low estimates around 1 to 1.5 degrees, but they do so by eliminating or minimizing feedbacks. But this also demonstrates that all this time you were ignorant of the scientific basis of the current warming trend, the readings of CO2 are increasing but it is not 100% certain when the full effect of the doubling will occur. It depends of factors like humans deciding at last to do a concerted effort to stop releasing greenhouse gases. So far it is safest to assume (thanks to denier politicians elected into office) that not much will be done so: [http://www.climatechangebusinessforum.com/en-us/understanding](http://www.climatechangebusinessforum.com/en-us/understanding) > [@](#): > > ``` > Business As Usual: The most likely IPCC scenario for future CO2 emissions lies between these two extremes. This middle scenario is called scenario "A" or the "business as usual" scenario. It is called the "business as usual" scenario because it assumes that population and economic growth rates, as well as nuclear energy costs, will not change significantly in the future. Based on the assumptions of scenario A, annual emissions of CO2 will rise to 20.3 GT by the year 2100. The concentration of atmospheric CO2 will be 700 ppm. This is double today's concentration. > > ``` > > Note: It is important to recognise that much of the change in climate in our atmosphere over the next 30 to 40 years has already been determined by historic emissions and because of the inertia in the climate system. Therefore it is vital to adapt to some degree of climate change whether or not future emissions are reduced. > From the IPCC scenarios there have been other significant forecasts. But, usually the doubling that scientists talk about is calculated from the pre-industrial era days: According to Hofmann, Butler, and Tans (2009) the growth rate of CO2 concentrations has been doubling about every 30 years since 1800. At this rate, CO2 concentration will reach 560 ppm (doubling pre-Industral Revolution values) by the year 2050. If we concentrate on England alone, the best estimates point at an increase of 2 degrees centigrade by 2050 > **[Floods, droughts and soaring temperatures: Met Office predicts how climate...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jun/18/uk-weather-climate-impact-report)** > > Average mean temperature likely to rise by more than 2C across the UK by 2050, say government and Met Office in major new report detailing the impacts of climate change over the next century So it would look like the 3 degrees are not there? Well, leaving aside the fact that most researchers agree that a 2 degree increase would make a big mess and it is in the range predicted by most researchers, the reality is that because of the lag or inertia of the system, more warming will come, the likely 3 degree estimate includes that lag that will come if we reduce CO2 emissions severely by then. It will make the situation more bad but at least we know it will stop getting worse in the long run. And as we could expect 700PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 if nothing is done, it is even more likely that 4 or more degrees of increase are in store. ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/232 "2011-09-10T15:59:03Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > By the way, I don’t engage with **GIGOBuster** because of his past refusal to answer a reasonable question about his position. > > He also has a strong tendency to respond to posts by answering arguments which haven’t been made and ignoring the actual point. I think it’s most likely because he’s just too stupid to understand the points people are making a lot of the time. Even the management of the SDMB did not agree with him on this regard, so just another lie from brazil84. As it was his lie that there are no rooftops reporting on the predictions and verifications that they do to the models, and also the fact that scientists do not primarily depend on them. One of those rooftops is in\* skeptical science \*and the links to the science and organizations reporting: > **[Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?](https://skepticalscience.com/christy-crock-4-observations-match-models.html)** > > At the recent US House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology climate hearing, the Republicans called Dr. John Christy as an expert witness testifying against the global warming consensus. Unfortunately, Christy spent his time... ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/233 "2011-09-10T16:24:45Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > By the way, I don’t engage with **GIGOBuster** because of his past refusal to answer a reasonable question about his position. You are, to put it mildly, not a wonderful judge of what a wonderful question is: in response to my statement about Randi’s debunking of a psychic, you’ve asked me twice how one recognizes an obvious fraudster. That’s only a reasonable question if you’re an idiot. You may want to stop engaging with me, because I’m not going to answer very stupid questions put to me. ---
**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, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/234 "2011-09-10T16:30:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You are, to put it mildly, not a wonderful judge of what a wonderful question is: in response to my statement about Randi’s debunking of a psychic, you’ve asked me twice how one recognizes an obvious fraudster. That’s only a reasonable question if you’re an idiot. You may want to stop engaging with me, because I’m not going to answer very stupid questions put to me. Yep, one of the results of putting the ones that have information on ignore like me is that it prevents the ignorers from asking those stupid questions to the ones offering the information. Sounds good to me. 🙂 ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/235 "2011-09-10T16:43:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I warned you already what is the result of hanging around denialist sites. It has indeed been willful ignorance. Several of the posts I made before did include a link to all the climate myths and several reported on the estimated temperature increases. I don’t know why you keep assuming my position results from hanging around denialist sites; it’s probably the same reason you kept assuming I claim there’s a cooling trend. Possibly you’re even now assuming that _ **you’ve** _ previously replied to me by endorsing that “3 degrees” criterion? I’ve heard _ **you** _ sign on for a 15-20 years criterion, I’ve heard _ **you** _ start naming a criterion involving the 70’s levels – but I’ve never heard _ **you** _ name a “3 degrees” criterion, and never saw a link to a cite meant to explain your choice of same. I don’t often bother clicking on your links, because I typically default to just believing you whenever you say one of 'em will support your claim du jour; if you’d ever _ **mentioned** _ the “3 degrees” criterion, the link would’ve been superfluous; so long as you _ **didn’t** _ mention it, I had no special reason to figure the link would either. For the sake of completeness, though: when did you allegedly post such a link to a falsifiable prediction? Is it a long youtube video with lots of music? > [@](#): > > And there is once again the refusal to see that we are dealing with probabilities, and lag time, the 3 degrees are likely, what is worrisome is that several researchers report that the temperature could reach 4 degrees or more, skeptical researchers go for the low estimates around 1 to 1.5 degrees, but they do so by eliminating or minimizing feedbacks. I’ll take 1 to 1.5 degrees, if that’s what you’d prefer – or are you a 3 to 4 degrees guy? Either way, I take it the “lag time” is “by 2050”, yes? > [@](#): > > At this rate, CO2 concentration will reach 560 ppm (doubling pre-Industral Revolution values) by the year 2050. > > If we concentrate on England alone, the best estimates point at an increase of 2 degrees centigrade by 2050 So if CO2 keeps on keeping on and we’re still only down in a tenths-of-a-degree rise by 2050 – or _ **no** _ change, but a global temperature plateau, by 2050 – or, of course, even a bit of _ **cooling** _ by 2050 – then we’ve got falsification, right? (Or, if you’re signing on for the 3-4 degree prediction instead of the low estimate that minimizes feedbacks, I take it even a 1.5-degree rise would suffice for falsification?) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/236 "2011-09-10T16:47:11Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You are, to put it mildly, not a wonderful judge of what a wonderful question is: in response to my statement about Randi’s debunking of a psychic, you’ve asked me twice how one recognizes an obvious fraudster. That’s only a reasonable question if you’re an idiot. Ok, so any author who poses this question and writes on this topic must also be an idiot, right? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/237 "2011-09-10T17:11:48Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ok, so any author who poses this question and writes on this topic must also be an idiot, right? Do you consider that another reasonable question? Because from where I’m standing, that’s another very stupid question. Although I shouldn’t answer it, I’ll give you this one for free: no. I’ll even give you some elaboration for free: the phrase “in response to” in what you quoted was there on purpose, it wasn’t just random letters my fingers made in a spasm on the keyboard. ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/238 "2011-09-10T17:44:59Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t know why you keep assuming my position results from hanging around denialist sites; it’s probably the same reason you kept assuming I claim there’s a cooling trend. Possibly you’re even now assuming that _ **you’ve** _ previously replied to me by endorsing that “3 degrees” criterion? > > I don’t often bother clicking on your links, because I typically default to just believing you whenever you say one of 'em will support your claim du jour; :dubious: > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > if you’d ever _ **mentioned** _ the “3 degrees” criterion, the link would’ve been superfluous; so long as you _ **didn’t** _ mention it, I had no special reason to figure the link would either. > > For the sake of completeness, though: when did you allegedly post such a link to a falsifiable prediction? Is it a long youtube video with lots of music? Where you come from is deduced by simple logic and brown M&Ms. 🙂 [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/143/made-to-stick-the-telltale-brown-mampm.html](http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/143/made-to-stick-the-telltale-brown-mampm.html) > [@](#): > > Van Halen buried a special clause in the middle of the contract. It was called Article 126. It read, “There will be no brown M&Ms in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.” So when Roth would arrive at a new venue, he’d walk backstage and glance at the M&M bowl. If he saw a brown M&M, he’d demand a line check of the entire production. “Guaranteed you’re going to arrive at a technical error,” he wrote. “They didn’t read the contract… Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy the whole show.” > > In other words, Roth was no diva. He was an operations expert. He couldn’t spend hours every night checking the amperage of each socket. He needed a way to assess quickly whether the stagehands at each venue were paying attention – whether they had read every word of the contract and taken it seriously. In Roth’s world, a brown M&M was the canary in the coal mine. What has happened is that besides the “There is no warming since 1998” there was the “we call it climate change now” > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... Each of the many myths already explained to death is a very juicy brown M&M. 🙂 (Feynman similarly treated many letters with questions like that in such manner, one opens the letter only to see if there are 10:20:30 questions and then do not bother further with that letter) That link to the climate myths has been posted many times, and I have made the point on previous discussions that to be taken seriously bring something new, not reheated baloney that was already shown to be a myth. The 3 degree bit is under CO2 climate sensibility is low. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’ll take 1 to 1.5 degrees, if that’s what you’d prefer – or are you a 3 to 4 degrees guy? Either way, I take it the “lag time” is “by 2050”, yes? Notice how reflexively you go for the lower estimate, the 3 degrees is the average of the estimations, it could get worse. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So if CO2 keeps on keeping on and we’re still only down in a tenths-of-a-degree rise by 2050 – or _ **no** _ change, but a global temperature plateau, by 2050 – or, of course, even a bit of _ **cooling** _ by 2050 – then we’ve got falsification, right? (Or, if you’re signing on for the 3-4 degree prediction instead of the low estimate that minimizes feedbacks, I take it even a 1.5-degree rise would suffice for falsification?) As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing. There you can have that falsification for the sensibility of CO2. As Brickmore pointed out, we already have about .6 degrees of warming already here thanks to human CO2 emissions. The reported warming trend so far does not lead one to say that it is likely that the temperature will go down to the levels that we had on the 70’s. And that decade is mentioned because it is the one where the evidence points as the time the CO2 forcing began to overwhelm the natural ones. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/239 "2011-09-10T18:21:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > (Feynman similarly treated many letters with questions like that in such manner, one opens the letter only to see if there are 10:20:30 questions and then do not bother further with that letter) Since I’m not asking a 10:20:30 question, that’s fine by me; I’ve merely been asking for clarification, and you’re now answering mine in a manner that leaves no further gulf between us – excepting, of course, one minor quibble and one major one: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I’ll take 1 to 1.5 degrees, if that’s what you’d prefer – or are you a 3 to 4 degrees guy? Either way, I take it the “lag time” is “by 2050”, yes? > > Notice how reflexively you go for the lower estimate, the 3 degrees is the average of the estimations, it could get worse. I was _ **asking** _ which of the two predictions you preferred for your falsification criterion; the lower estimate would make it harder to falsify your prediction, which is why I “reflexively” asked whether it’s your criterion of choice. I am, if anything, even happier with you choosing a criterion that’s _ **easier** _ to falsify; either prediction falls apart if we only get a rise of tenths of a degree – or less – but a 3-degree claim will fail given evidence that would vindicate a 1-degree claim. So if you’re opting for “3 degrees” (or more), then I’m satisfied… > [@](#): > > As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing. There you can have that falsification for the sensibility of CO2. As Brickmore pointed out, we already have about .6 degrees of warming already here thanks to human CO2 emissions. The reported warming trend so far does not lead one to say that it is likely that the temperature will go down to the levels that we had on the 70’s. And that decade is mentioned because it is the one where the evidence points as the time the CO2 forcing began to overwhelm the natural ones. …and then you’ve got to go and do this. So if there’s _ **no** _ rise – not the specified “3 degrees”, not even a rise of 0.3 degrees, maybe even a _ **drop** _ of 0.3 degrees – you’re saying that global warming will still remain unfalsified? C’mon, man; you were so close. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/240 "2011-09-10T18:22:45Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Do you consider that another reasonable question? Because from where I’m standing, that’s another very stupid question. Although I shouldn’t answer it, I’ll give you this one for free: no. I’ll even give you some elaboration for free: the phrase “in response to” in what you quoted was there on purpose, it wasn’t just random letters my fingers made in a spasm on the keyboard. Lol, and “in response to” was part of the “topic” on which a hypothetical author might be writing. Which you now concede would not be idiotic. Apparently it’s only when you are confronted yourself with a challenging question that you consider the question to be “idiotic.” Anyway, it seems you have two sets of standards. For CAGW, the predictions can repeatedly fail and the hypothesis will not be falsified. For self-proclaimed psyhics, there is no need to do further investigation of their claims because they are “obvious fraud.” However, you refuse to set forth your criteria for “obvious fraud” – apparently it’s whatever you feel it to be. And anyone who asks you about it is an idiot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=13)