# 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:** 16
**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 13, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/301 "2011-09-13T18:37:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So you are saying that my posts have been ambiguous and you do not understand what my position is? Are we playing Questions? I’m not going to clarify my position further. ---
**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 13, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/302 "2011-09-13T18:38:08Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Not going to happen. If you actually say what you are talking about, then people can quite rightly challenge you. Best to stay vague and insult your opponents. A lie, as this was posted before on the other pit thread: [boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14247458&postcount=95](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14247458&postcount=95) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/303 "2011-09-13T18:40:39Z")
Moving goalposts, strawmen, insults and diversions, it’s what science is all about. ---
**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 13, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/304 "2011-09-13T19:04:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > A lie, as this was posted before on the other pit thread: > > [boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14247458&postcount=95](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14247458&postcount=95) Here’s the quote from the post in question: _“as the laws of physics are also involved you can start by falsifying Kirchoff’s law.”_ The key words are, of course, “also” and “start by” – since the set-up is to again play the _“we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing”_ card. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/305 "2011-09-13T19:21:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Are we playing Questions? Apparently so. It tends to happen a lot of the time when I ask people reasonable questions and they evade them. I (often) ask more questions. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to clarify my position further. Probably because you are on the horns of a dilemma. You know perfectly well that nothing I have said on this issue is incorrect. But if you admit it, it shows that your bluster and insults were just that. On the other hand, if you claim to disagree with something I have said, the next question is what exactly you disagree with. Which will be difficult to specify. Your other choice is to claim that you didn’t understand my position. But the problem with that is it calls into question your arrogant and condescending attitude when you could have simply asked for clarification. Besides which, what I have said on this issue has been reasonably clear. But suit yourself. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/306 "2011-09-13T19:27:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Moving goalposts, strawmen, insults and diversions, it’s what science is all about. For the Religious Left, that is correct. Arguments are like soldiers and favored theories are like Home Turf. Both must be defended to the utmost without regards to their rightness or wrongness. I would guess that most warmists won’t even concede that there’s any evidence out their which undermines their hypothesis. ---
**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 13, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/307 "2011-09-13T19:41:14Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Moving goalposts, strawmen, insults and diversions, it’s what science is all about. So no reply to the science in that post.. that figures ---
**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 13, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/308 "2011-09-13T19:49:16Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Here’s the quote from the post in question: _“as the laws of physics are also involved you can start by falsifying Kirchoff’s law.”_ > > The key words are, of course, “also” and “start by” – since the set-up is to again play the _“we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing”_ card. And that is why everyone can see you are not capable of even noticing how inadecuate your starting point was. As mentioned, you can start by looking for the evidence to falsify that item, while it is just a part of it, it is one of the key parts. You will be then on your way to scientific glory. Or just more whining… ---
**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 13, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/309 "2011-09-13T19:59:10Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > For the Religious Left, that is correct. Arguments are like soldiers and favored theories are like Home Turf. Both must be defended to the utmost without regards to their rightness or wrongness. > > I would guess that most warmists won’t even concede that there’s any evidence out their which undermines their hypothesis. This was aleready shown to be a lie, what it is clear is that no change and just repeating a discredited mantra will be enough for deniers. But their efforts are only good enough for Nowhere land. As pointed beforea, no good suport for their lousy points has been put forward. And this is because any good support is discrediting themselves. ---
**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 13, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/310 "2011-09-13T20:14:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is why everyone can see you are not capable of even noticing how inadecuate your starting point was. As mentioned, you can start by looking for the evidence to falsify that item, while it is just a part of it, it is one of the key parts. You will be then on your way to scientific glory. And you’ll be on your way to playing Lucy with the football: until you spell out how many parts there are, you can _ **always** _ name another: I falsify one, you name a second; I falsify that one, you name a third? I don’t mind you setting out as many criteria as you please – but you need to move from “one of the key parts” to naming _ **all** _ of the key parts. (That said, I admit to being curious: are you saying that, if there’s no warming for decades – even centuries? – then your prediction of “warming” remains true so long as Kirchoff’s law remains true? That even decades of _ **cooling** _ wouldn’t falsify your prediction of “warming” because Kirchoff’s law remains true? Is that your modest prediction?) ---
**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 13, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/311 "2011-09-13T20:17:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > But their efforts are only good enough for Nowhere land. As pointed beforea, no good suport for their lousy points has been put forward. What lousy points? I’m asking for your falsification criteria so I can make points; how can I put support forward until I know what evidence you think _ **wouldn’t** _ be consistent with your impossibly vague prediction? ---
**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 13, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/312 "2011-09-13T20:23:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Apparently so. It tends to happen a lot of the time when I ask people reasonable questions and they evade them. I (often) ask more questions. It’s certainly a convenient way for you to avoid posting substance is to try for death by a thousand irritating questions. I mean, seriously, you read my post, and instead of responding it’s to ask me whether I found your writing ambiguous? Seriously, dude, you think that’s a reasonable follow-up? > [@](#): > > Probably because you are on the horns of a dilemma. You know perfectly well that nothing I have said on this issue is incorrect. But if you admit it, it shows that your bluster and insults were just that. Ah, now I understand why you are convinced AGW is a fraud: it’s because you believe you’re psychic. If you can reach the conclusion you just did based on my posts, you can reach any conclusion whatsoever. Until you respond substantively, of course, all you’ll get from me is insults. Respond substantively to my two-posts-distant post, and we can continue this conversation until you again try for Death By A Thousand Trivial Questions. ---
**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 13, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/313 "2011-09-13T20:41:04Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And you’ll be on your way to playing Lucy with the football: until you spell out how many parts there are, you can _ **always** _ name another: I falsify one, you name a second; I falsify that one, you name a third? I don’t mind you setting out as many criteria as you please – but you need to move from “one of the key parts” to naming _ **all** _ of the key parts. I already did, it was the 10 human fingerprint points from skeptical science, as mentioned, it is easy to come up with falsifications for one of the items as I already pointed at. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > (That said, I admit to being curious: are you saying that, if there’s no warming for decades – even centuries? – then your prediction of “warming” remains true so long as Kirchoff’s law remains true? That even decades of _ **cooling** _ wouldn’t falsify your prediction of “warming” because Kirchoff’s law remains true? Is that your modest prediction?) Again, there has been more than 50 years of confirmation that it applies to CO2 in the atmosphere, most of the other lines of evidence will become really weak as soon this effect is falsified because it is a big part of the issue. Also if anyone can demonstrates that it is not human made CO2 what is increasing in the atmosphere. (Another easy to make falsification). ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/314 "2011-09-13T21:08:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It’s certainly a convenient way for you to avoid posting substance is to try for death by a thousand irritating questions. Of course it’s convenient. If you refuse to give me a simple yes or no as to whether you disagree with me on an issue; and you refuse to even give me a simple yes or no as to whether you understand my position on an issue, then why should I bother “posting substance”? > [@](#): > > Seriously, dude, you think that’s a reasonable follow-up? Of course. You dodged my simple yes or no question. Seriously dude, if you refuse to give me a simple yes or no as to whether you disagree with me on an issue; and you refuse to even give me a simple yes or no as to whether you understand my position on an issue, then why should I bother “posting substance”? ---
**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 13, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/315 "2011-09-13T21:14:06Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Probably because you are on the horns of a dilemma. You know perfectly well that nothing I have said on this issue is incorrect. But if you admit it, it shows that your bluster and insults were just that. > > On the other hand, if you claim to disagree with something I have said, the next question is what exactly you disagree with. Which will be difficult to specify. > > Your other choice is to claim that you didn’t understand my position. But the problem with that is it calls into question your arrogant and condescending attitude when you could have simply asked for clarification. Besides which, what I have said on this issue has been reasonably clear. > > But suit yourself. This is actually pretty telling. You’re living in a fantasy world in which your Matlockian questions will force me to prove either that I think you’re right, or that I can’t explain where you’re wrong, or that I’m too stupid to understand you. My refusal to answer your questions plays into your fourth fantasy: that I’m a coward. What we don’t see anywhere in your analysis is an interest in an honest discussion. That’s why, instead of responding to substantive answers to questions (questions that don’t easily lend themselves to yes or no answers), you play games. YOu want a fantasy. THat said, here are your answers to the questions in your last post: I don’t care whether I disagree with you, because what your position is isn’t as interesting as a position put forth. So technically, no, I don’t disagree with you. There’s your first answer. My second answer is no, I don’t understand your position. YOu think that’s on me. I disrespectfully disagree. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/316 "2011-09-13T21:23:45Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is actually pretty telling. You’re living in a fantasy world in which your Matlockian questions will force me to prove either that I think you’re right, or that I can’t explain where you’re wrong, or that I’m too stupid to understand you. My refusal to answer your questions plays into your fourth fantasy: that I’m a coward. I think it’s not so much that you are a coward as that you don’t want to admit to yourself or to others that your earlier position didn’t make much sense. > [@](#): > > THat said, here are your answers to the questions in your last post: I don’t care whether I disagree with you, because what your position is isn’t as interesting as a position put forth. So technically, no, I don’t disagree with you. There’s your first answer. Ok, so it would seem you concede that your “obvious fraud” standard is unworkable; that if evidence comes forward which contradicts a hypothesis one always needs to consider whether the entire hypothesis should be jettisoned; and that someones one should do just that. > [@](#): > > My second answer is no, I don’t understand your position. If there are aspects of my position you do not understand, I think it would make more sense to politely request clarification rather than engage in insults and bluster. ---
**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 13, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/317 "2011-09-13T21:35:23Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ok, so it would seem you concede that your “obvious fraud” standard is unworkable; that if evidence comes forward which contradicts a hypothesis one always needs to consider whether the entire hypothesis should be jettisoned; and that someones one should do just that. Good grief. Didja not read the things that came before “I don’t disagree?” THey make it perfectly clear that I also don’t agree. ---
**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 13, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/318 "2011-09-13T21:40:16Z")
Meh, I already tried to reason before with b84, **Left Hand of Dorkness** he is just happy to remain in Nowhere Land. ---
**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 13, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/319 "2011-09-13T21:40:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Good grief. Didja not read the things that came before “I don’t disagree?” THey make it perfectly clear that I also don’t agree. This is why I didn’t want to offer yes/no answers to your questions: a yes or no is misleading. That’s why I gave elaborated answers. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/320 "2011-09-13T21:40:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Good grief. Didja not read the things that came before “I don’t disagree?” THey make it perfectly clear that I also don’t agree. Seems like a concession to me. But in any event, if you dispute any of those points, feel free to explain the basis of your disagreement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=17)