# 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:** 17
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/321 "2011-09-13T21:42:33Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 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. Which specific points are you talking about? I’ve already disputed the ones I want to. I have no interest in making some sort of global declaration on your posts; I neither agree nor disagree with “your posts.” But if you think there’s some specific point I’ve not addressed, feel free to say it again. If it’s substantive, and not some stupid question about what constitutes “obvious fraud” or whatever, I’ll address it, or point you to where I already did. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/322 "2011-09-13T21:43:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. I suppose it would be. But let’s be clear about the 10 fingerprints: 1. CO2 levels are rising. 2. Specifically, it’s carbon from fossil fuels. 3. Oxygen levels are declining. 4. There’s also been a rise in carbon in coral records. 5. Less heat is escaping out to space at specific wavelengths. 6. More heat is returning in downward radiation. 7. The planet warms faster at night than during the day. 8. There’s cooling in the upper atmosphere. 9. There’s been an observed rise in the tropopause. 10. The ionosphere has cooled. Assume for the sake of argument that none of those are falsified but the planet gets no warmer – possibly getting cooler? – for decades and even centuries to come. Assume, in the alternative, that some or all of those ten get falsified and the planet steadily gets a lot warmer. Are you saying that your warming prediction would prove true in the first case, and false in the second? ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/323 "2011-09-13T22:11:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I suppose it would be. But let’s be clear about the 10 fingerprints: > > 1. CO2 levels are rising. > 2. Specifically, it’s carbon from fossil fuels. > 3. Oxygen levels are declining. > 4. There’s also been a rise in carbon in coral records. > 5. Less heat is escaping out to space at specific wavelengths. > 6. More heat is returning in downward radiation. > 7. The planet warms faster at night than during the day. > 8. There’s cooling in the upper atmosphere. > 9. There’s been an observed rise in the tropopause. > 10. The ionosphere has cooled. > > Assume for the sake of argument that none of those are falsified but the planet gets no warmer – possibly getting cooler? – for decades and even centuries to come. Assume, in the alternative, that some or all of those ten get falsified and the planet steadily gets a lot warmer. > > Are you saying that your warming prediction would prove true in the first case, and false in the second? You just want to press on the definition of unlikely uh? 🙂 It would be extremely unlikely, before that happens many of the lines of evidence would already had fallen and would be falsified, but if we go to fantasy land, that assumes none of those items are falsified, then there is something wrong with the theory and should be modified and eventually rejected as the data would no longer fit the estimated projections. If all of them do get falsified and the planet gets a lot warmer that also falsifies the theory as then a different reason takes its place, just like Feynman said, and as he also said, many times the idea that is proposed to replace it is not good so until that unlikely thing happens I would worry that the current scientists and experts investigating the issue are getting it wrong. ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/324 "2011-09-13T22:13:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Which specific points are you talking about? Ummm, the 3 points you quoted in Post #317. Except that I accidentally used the word “someones” instead of “sometimes.” ---
**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, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/325 "2011-09-13T22:24:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ummm, the 3 points you quoted in Post #317. Except that I accidentally used the word “someones” instead of “sometimes.” The “obvious fraud” standard question is very stupid and an irrelevancy, so I’m not going to dignify it with a response. As for the others, post 292 comprises my answer. A “yes/no” answer that you seek would be as misleading as you found my answer to your “do you disagree?” question, so I won’t provide it. If post 292 confuses you, please explain why. ---
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/326 "2011-09-13T22:31:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The “obvious fraud” standard question is very stupid and an irrelevancy, so I’m not going to dignify it with a response. i.e. you don’t want to admit that your point about “obvious fraud” was stupid. > [@](#): > > As for the others, post 292 comprises my answer. Lol, I assume you mean Post 293. Anyway, I don’t engage with people who refuse to answer reasonable questions about their positions. You have evaded and dodged and weaved enough already. Goodbye. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/327 "2011-09-13T22:36:45Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Anyway, I don’t engage with people who refuse to answer reasonable questions about their positions. That is an entirely reasonable position to take. The evasion and deception and outright batshit insanity some people spew forth and then consider words of gold, it makes me wonder at their sanity. ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/328 "2011-09-13T22:40:36Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That is an entirely reasonable position to take. The evasion and deception and outright batshit insanity some people spew forth and then consider words of gold, it makes me wonder at their sanity. Says the one that even the most respected dopers do not think that he shoots straight. ---
**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, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/329 "2011-09-13T22:43:50Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That is an entirely reasonable position to take. The evasion and deception and outright batshit insanity some people spew forth and then consider words of gold, it makes me wonder at their sanity. Thanks. By the way, I basically agree with the point you made in the “science denialist” thread. When you think about it logically, it should hardly come as a surprise if ideas which are popular at the moment later turn out to be dead wrong. And yet people seem to think that we’ve Finally Figured Things Out; the Science is Settled; etc. ---
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/330 "2011-09-13T23:50:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Thanks. By the way, I basically agree with the point you made in the “science denialist” thread. When you think about it logically, it should hardly come as a surprise if ideas which are popular at the moment later turn out to be dead wrong. 100 years ago scientists found about CO2 and that it could cause warming, scientists on the whole thought that there was no trouble as the levels were so small. That was the popular view until the 50s-60s when suddenly the unpopular view that emissions would make a problem was supported by evidence and confirmed during the next 50 years. Even on history our Nowhere man is wrong. > [@brazil84](#): > > And yet people seem to think that we’ve Finally Figured Things Out; the Science is Settled; etc. > **[RealClimate: Unsettled Science](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/)** > > RealClimate: Unusually, I'm in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page: "The Climate Science Isn't Settled" The article below is the same mix of innuendo and misrepresentation that its author normally writes,... > [@](#): > > The IPCC reports should be required reading for anyone who thinks that scientists think that the ‘science is settled’ – the vast array of uncertainties that are discussed and dissected puts that notion to bed immediately. But what we do have are reasons for concern. As Mike Hulme recently wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > [S]cience has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don’t know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales. > > … > > The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been “done” or “is settled”; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. > > Dealing with the future always involves dealing with uncertainty – and this is as true with climate as it is with the economy. Science has led to a great deal of well-supported concern that increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society. Playing rhetorical games in the face of this, while momentarily satisfying for blog commenters, is no answer at all to the real issues we face. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/331 "2011-09-13T23:56:29Z")
Using realclimate to bolster your belief system is like shooting yourself in the foot at the start of a fight. ---
**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 14, 2011, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/332 "2011-09-14T00:08:04Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Using realclimate to bolster your belief system is like shooting yourself in the foot at the start of a fight. Meh, as we have seen they were on the money regarding the latest denialist myth about the CERN cloud research eliminating global warming. And the contributors are climate experts currently involved in research. You are not capable of even identifying good sources from the bad. ---
**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 14, 2011, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/333 "2011-09-14T00:14:34Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Lol, I assume you mean Post 293. Anyway, I don’t engage with people who refuse to answer reasonable questions about their positions. Yep–this is the point where you declare victory in your fantasy battle, because you think that the Death by a Thousand Questions is a useful conversational gambit. Enjoy your fantasy victory! The rest of us note that, given complex answers to questions, you respond with more games, instead of responding with substance. ---
**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 14, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/334 "2011-09-14T00:45:28Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Thanks. By the way, I basically agree with the point you made in the “science denialist” thread. When you think about it logically, it should hardly come as a surprise if ideas which are popular at the moment later turn out to be dead wrong. And yet people seem to think that we’ve Finally Figured Things Out; the Science is Settled; etc. Well, I didn’t mean the majority of physics is wrong by any means, it is more the fuzzy edges and unknowns all around that still are somewhat shocking to find how little we know about our world, our Universe, and our fellow human beings. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/335 "2011-09-14T01:41:15Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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.** _ This doesn’t even come close to your very own standards. You need to read a historical perspective on smoking and cancer research. Epidemiological studies on smoking and cancer didn’t even begin until people happened to notice a rise in lung cancer. This correlated with a rise in smoking. There were alternative hypotheses such as pollution and the simple fact that people were living longer due to antibiotics. Epidemiology is useful but the clincher and proof of principle was in experimentation. You should also google falsifiable and climate change or global warming. It will direct you to many posts at Realclimate that spell it out very nicely for you. Climate science is not just based on models. It is also backed up by extensive experimentation. I should be surprised that you haven’t looked up these things on your own, but I’m not surprised at all. ---
**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 14, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/336 "2011-09-14T01:43:10Z")
Realclimate is a joke. Please stop embarrassing yourself. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/337 "2011-09-14T01:53:43Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > . Climate science is not just based on models. It is also backed up by extensive experimentation. In your view, what are 2 or 3 of the more compelling experimental results which back up CAGW? (Assuming you believe that CAGW has been backed up by experimental results.) ---
**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 14, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/338 "2011-09-14T02:01:52Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Realclimate is a joke. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Like if your lousy opinion has merit, RealClimate contributors are scientists, virtually all denialist sources are peddling pseudoscience and even misquoting scientific papers to make more myths. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/339 "2011-09-14T02:07:30Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Realclimate is a joke. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Oops, that’s right. It’s a cite with scientists talking about science. My bad! ---
**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 14, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/340 "2011-09-14T02:15:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives. > **[Positives and negatives of global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm)** > > \The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.\ There is a prime example of unscientific writing, published by “experts”, who simply made that up. Not only is it impossible to prove the statement, it’s impossible to disprove it. Because that isn’t a scientific statement. It’s opinion, it’s a conclusion, it’s a belief. It’s no surprise that the gullible who “want to believe” lap up such swill and decry all who don’t march lockstep with them as “deniers”. Such is fanaticism, and religion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=18)