# 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:** 13
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/241 "2011-09-10T19:34:00Z")
> [@the other waldo pepper](#): > > …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. [Feynman] 10:20:30, down the dismissed bin it goes [/Feynman] ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/242 "2011-09-10T19:37:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 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.” Nope, a lie again as if the preponderance of the evidence points the other way then the theory will be dismissed. > [@brazil84](#): > > 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. b84 is an idiot, but we knew that already. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/243 "2011-09-10T20:22:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Feynman] > 10:20:30, down the dismissed bin it goes > [/Feynman] That wasn’t me suggesting a falsification criterion; that was me requesting yours. From you, something on the 10:20:30 level would be an _ **improvement;** _ in the end, you’re still just a guy who never even got around to filling in the blank. You can’t even spell out how we’d know if you’re wrong? [Pauli] Then you’re not even wrong. [/Pauli] ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/244 "2011-09-10T20:48:28Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That wasn’t me suggesting a falsification criterion; that was me requesting yours. From you, something on the 10:20:30 level would be an _ **improvement;** _ in the end, you’re still just a guy who never even got around to filling in the blank. > > You can’t even spell out how we’d know if you’re wrong? > > [Pauli] > Then you’re not even wrong. > [/Pauli] Uh you are, you are really in trouble when you do not realize that the dismissal was about you complaining about the odds, you have your falsification, I said that it is going to be very unlikely you will see any profit. That say so is based on history and the research data. And in the end, that is what you are denying. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/245 "2011-09-10T23:01:55Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > However, you refuse to set forth your criteria for “obvious fraud” Obvious fraud is obvious. If it requires definition and pedantry, **it’s not obvious**. Jesus. ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/246 "2011-09-10T23:18:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Obvious fraud is obvious. If it requires definition and pedantry, **it’s not obvious**. Seems to me that this sort of reasoning has no place in science. We won’t test this claim because it’s obviously fraudulent. How do we know it? Because it’s obvious. Guess what? To me, CAGW is obviously fraudulent. Lol, I guess no further argument or explanation is required. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/247 "2011-09-10T23:23:59Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Seems to me that this sort of reasoning has no place in science. We won’t test this claim because it’s obviously fraudulent. How do we know it? Because it’s obvious. > > Guess what? To me, CAGW is obviously fraudulent. Lol, I guess no further argument or explanation is required. Lol! Lol lol lol! If CAGW is obviously fraudulent to you, you’re either lying to try to make a point, or you’re an idiot. That’s one of those nonexclusive ors. No further argument required indeed. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/248 "2011-09-10T23:28:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Lol! Lol lol lol! Another stunning rebuttal. > [@](#): > > If CAGW is obviously fraudulent to you, you’re either lying to try to make a point, or you’re an idiot. Nope, it’s obviously fraudulent to me because I know a lot about the subject. > [@](#): > > No further argument required indeed. Sure, because **Left Hand of Dorkness** is the Final and Ultimate Arbiter of what is fraudulent. Anyone who disagrees with Him is officially an idiot. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/249 "2011-09-10T23:39:09Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Another stunning rebuttal. Dude, you’ve LOLed in your last two responses to me. Protip: when you type “lol” to indicate that something is genuinely humorous, it’s just a little twee. When you do it to indicate that someone’s argument is so poor that you have to laugh at them, it shows both that you’re an imbecile who doesn’t realize what an imbecile he is, AND that you’re a douchebag. It’s a twofer. (Twelve-year-old girls who do it are also douchebag imbeciles, but I cut them a little slack for the same reason I cut 12-year-old boys who call things “gay” slack: they’re likely to grow out of the imbecilic douchebag phase). I thought repeating the word over and over might embarrass you out of not using it, but I overestimated your ability to parse posts yet again. My bad. > [@](#): > > Sure, because **Left Hand of Dorkness** is the Final and Ultimate Arbiter of what is fraudulent. Anyone who disagrees with Him is officially an idiot. No, dear. There are plenty of people who disagree with me who are not idiots. There are plenty of people who agree with me on things who are idiots. Your rank stupidity has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you agree with me on anything. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/250 "2011-09-11T00:03:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Your rank stupidity has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you agree with me on anything. I see you have no response on the actual substance but must instead resort to insults. > [@](#): > > I thought repeating the word over and over might embarrass you And I thought you were basically giving up on making any kind of substantive argument. Which seems to be correct. ETA: Lol ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/251 "2011-09-11T01:37:05Z")
Hmm that long screed in GD that was posted yesterday got disappeared-I’m guessing sock? ---
**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 11, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/252 "2011-09-11T03:27:19Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Hmm that long screed in GD that was posted yesterday got disappeared-I’m guessing sock? That was my guess too, There was another “Jwhatever” that used to do long screeds that was banned some months ago, the screeds were usually about gold, Ron Paul, libertarianism, etc. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/253 "2011-09-11T04:35:21Z")
Yeah that’s who I thought it was. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/254 "2011-09-11T05:18:07Z")
So, **Waldo** , I just wanted you to know that your olive branch offer to accept a three degree rise by 2050 is nothing but proof that you have a specific agenda other than science and its practices. Your not so subtle idea that prudent scientific belief supports doing nothing for forty years plummets right off the edge of any sort of reasonable thinking. You don’t design a parachute while you are falling. And you don’t change an ecological crisis by waiting to see if the Earth is catastrophically altered in a manner strong enough to bring famine and economic disaster to a majority of its inhabitants. I get it. Defend the economic status quo at all costs. Never admit that there is a possibility that current industrial practices represent a threat until that threat is an accomplished disaster, because “That’s good science.” Swing and a miss. I am not sure, however which side of the incredibly stupid versus knowingly dishonest dichotomy this revelation best supports. Tris ---
**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 11, 2011, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/255 "2011-09-11T10:56:51Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > So, **Waldo** , > > I just wanted you to know that your olive branch offer to accept a three degree rise by 2050 is nothing but proof that you have a specific agenda other than science and its practices. My “olive branch offer to accept a three degree rise”? I put out an “olive branch offer” for GIGO’s first falsification criterion (no warming for 15-20 years) and for GIGO’s second one (cooling back to the '70s levels) before putting out an olive branch for this third one – and every time, GIGO shot down his own proposal instead. > [@](#): > > Your not so subtle idea that prudent scientific belief supports doing nothing for forty years plummets right off the edge of any sort of reasonable thinking. When did I say that? > [@](#): > > You don’t design a parachute while you are falling. And you don’t change an ecological crisis by waiting to see if the Earth is catastrophically altered in a manner strong enough to bring famine and economic disaster to a majority of its inhabitants. IIRC, my response – right here in this thread, even – to someone analogizing AGW to an asteroid heading for the planet involved pointing out that I’m fine with doing something _ **before** _ we let the asteroid smack into the planet, so long as folks pitching the “asteroid” scenario can spell out hypothetical evidence that (a) would falsify their position, but (b) will never actually come to pass if we avert the problem. GIGO refuses to do even that. He tiptoes up to the brink of naming such a criterion, then dances back to can’t-even-hypothetically-be-proven-wrong territory. He spelled out one, but then came a disclaimer that _“I just informed recently that it was too simple and ignores other factors”_. He then spent rather a lot of time refusing to spell out a sufficiently complex criteiron that doesn’t ignore other factors before spelling out another criteiron – and then added that _“the warming could just be going to a different location”_. He then spent rather a lot of time refusing to spell out how we could falsify an over-all claim about warning – but just now spelled out another criterion for me to olive-branch, only to then tack on a quick _“As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing.”_ So even if all three of those come to pass, he can still claim that global warming hasn’t been falsified; it’s only ever “one aspect”, never “the whole thing”. The tests he suggests are only ever “too simple”, given all the “other factors”. [QUOTE=GIGObuster] Uh you are, you are really in trouble when you do not realize that the dismissal was about you complaining about the odds, you have your falsification, I said that it is going to be very unlikely you will see any profit. [/QUOTE] Oh? Here’s the dismissal that (a) concerned me, and (b) I quoted back to you: _“As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing.”_ I see nothing in there about the odds or profit; I didn’t quote it to complain about the former, and it doesn’t say anything about the latter. It’s merely that I want criteria for “the whole thing” rather “only one aspect”, and as per that quote you refuse to supply 'em. ---
**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 11, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/256 "2011-09-11T14:21:37Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Oh? Here’s the dismissal that (a) concerned me, and (b) I quoted back to you: _“As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing.”_ I see nothing in there about the odds or profit; I didn’t quote it to complain about the former, and it doesn’t say anything about the latter. It’s merely that I want criteria for “the whole thing” rather “only one aspect”, and as per that quote you refuse to supply 'em. And I’m just saying, it is not really hard to find falsifications of the lines of evidence that we have to support AGW. We already established many times before that you do not like the explanations for the answers, I’m just making note that you dishonestly avoid dealing with the evidence that shows why it is unlikely for that falsification to come after looking at the research already done that would had falsified it. The problem remains that many of the lines of evidence are based on the laws of physics, so be my guest to figure out the rest of the falsifications and use the ones offered so far for some of the lines of evidence, I’m just saying (as the Chinese saying goes) that you may as well wait for a rabbit to hit upon a tree and be killed in order to catch it. > [@](#): > > Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, “Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.” It is just more likely. That is all. - Feynmann - The Messenger Lectures at Cornell University, When the IPCC reports (and that is also the UN BTW) that something is Very likely they claim that it will happen with a 90% probability. [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es.html) > [@](#): > > New results \*\*corroborate those given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR). \*\*Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. When you brought smoking and relied on medical scientists and evidence you actually made your decision to not smoke or to tell others to not smoke based on what, at worse, it is around a 40% probability that a smoker would die of smoking related diseases. If one tries to avoid using extreme old age deaths from cancer and heart disease that can be explained by the same old age and not smoking, then the percentage that die between the ages of 35 and 65 years is calculated to be 25% > **[quitsmokingsupport.com](http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/scary.htm)** > > This domain may be for sale! Really, even if pro smoker groups (the deniers of the medical science changed to that) continue to whine about the odds, it is very clear that one should stop smoking, it is an added risk that should be removed. Now what should one do with an item that has a 90% chance of happening in the future? ---
**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 11, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/257 "2011-09-11T17:38:37Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I see you have no response on the actual substance but must instead resort to insults. There was no actual substance to respond to. I posted a thoroughly correct explanation of how science works. Instead of saying, “Well, duh,” as any moderately educated person should, or instead of saying, “Here’s an example from the world of science that contradicts your claim,” you tried to rebut my thoroughly correct claim with a link to an entertainment show on which a stage magician humiliated a fraudster, as if that were remotely relevant, and then asked one of your famous “exhaust your opponents through trivial busywork request” questions. There was no substance. It was an idiotic question. After the second time you repeated it, I started mocking you for it. If you want to put forth a substantive argument, be my guest. Here’s where you can start. I said that when scientists falsify a hypotheis, they don’t throw it out entirely; rather, they modify it to fit the new information and then try again. Do you seriously disagree that’s how it’s done? Take an example. Scientists complete a drug trial in an animal model that shows their new drug Chemex eliminates lung tumors in 75% of subjects. They hypothesize that it will do the same in human subjects and begin a clinical trial. It doesn’t work **at all**. Which do you think the scientists do? 1. They complete a few more experiments, finding that humans have a chemical in their kidneys that binds to Chemex, rendering it inert, and so they devise a modified version of Chemex that won’t bind to that chemical and conduct another animal trial and then another human trial; or 2. They throw up their hands, toss out all their work, and start over with a new chemical? #1 is the right answer, because that’s what scientists do when a hypothesis or theory is falsified. They don’t start over; they don’t ignore all the data they’ve gathered and all the times they’ve failed to falsify the various subtheories that led to the current falsified one. Rather, they look for how to improve the hypothesis or theory so that the falsifying test, repeated, no longer falsifies. The extra credit problem is to be answered only when you answer the questions above. Extra credit: why is the process I described above absolutely consistent with how scientists treat psychics? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/258 "2011-09-11T17:51:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > There was no actual substance to respond to. Sure there was. For example, I pointed out that the “obvious fraud” rule is not workable. Your response? > [@](#): > > Lol! Lol lol lol! ---
**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 11, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/259 "2011-09-11T18:08:12Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure there was. For example, I pointed out that the “obvious fraud” rule is not workable. Your response? Of course brazil84 then proceeds to ignore that **Left Hand of Dorkness** explained on that post why there is no obvious fraud from the scientists, fraudsters do not do science, they only claim to change the parameter, in real life they never come back to test the new “explanations” they come with. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/260 "2011-09-11T18:23:28Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I said that when scientists falsify a hypotheis, they don’t throw it out entirely; rather, they modify it to fit the new information and then try again. Do you seriously disagree that’s how it’s done? I agree that something like this can and does happen; and that it’s not necessarily illegitimate. But it should not be the normal and sole response to falsification. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=14)