# 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:** 2
**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 5, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/21 "2011-09-05T18:29:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not getting this either. **Gigo** , can you explain the problem with his request? The reality is that the context shows that he already acknowledged on a previous discussion that a falsification was given, I just informed recently that it was too simple and ignores other factors: as a minimum, the historical instrumental data recorded. But he can have it if it makes him happy. What he can not have is ignoring the evidence that shows this is more complex and his refusal to drop the myth that he used to base his line of questioning just demonstrates that he is not willing to learn, if this is science then one should change his/her position based on the facts, not an out of context quote from the UN climate center. He reasons that just because I report now that the issue is more complex than the early falsifiable prediction I made early that therefore that prediction is not good enough; well duh, we already did go through plenty of evidence to show that his demands are based on denialist boiler plate points, it does not stretch the imagination to conclude that the narrow demand is made to then get a falsification that it is not taking into account the big picture. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/22 "2011-09-05T18:33:38Z")
Easy. (1) The models have indeed been validated against past data, and therefore have passed all the falsifiability tests currently available. (2) If you wait for predictions about the future to be validated as well, the time to act on them will have already passed, and it will always continue to be possible for you to continue to stubbornly demand something you can no longer deny is “proof” even then. (3) Since you know that too, or should, then the demand you make of \*\*Gigo \*\*is equivalent to a demand that the science be ignored. (4) You offer no competing data or models instead, simply denial. (5) Ergo you aren’t a “skeptic”, no matter how much you may console yourself with the term, but merely a stubborn denialist, a spreader of ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/23 "2011-09-05T18:40:30Z")
There’s an old observation that in warmer years, **The Other Waldo Pepper** is more full of shit than in cooler years. As a test of the observation that Earth is undergoing global warming, I’ve monitored how full of shit **The Other Waldo Pepper** is from 1860 until the present time. Although he used to be much less full of shit, over the past centruy and a half his shit levels have increased from just a little BullShit until now where he is Piled High and Deep. Thankfully, his PhD has allowed him to eloquently inform us about the dangers of ignoring falsimification. This latest test of global warming and the types of predictions we might make if the AGW model is correct is supported by the data. Otherwise, we expect there to be no relationship at all which would call the model, as is, into question. This pattern of research is similar to every last published paper in every scientific journal in the world. ---
**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 5, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/24 "2011-09-05T18:57:19Z")
My daughter kept kicking the dinner table really hard. “Careful!” I said. “Your plate is about to fall off the table!” “Oh yeah?” she said. “I’m skeptical. If you’re so smart, tell me: is it going to fall right-side up, or upside down?” “I don’t know,” I said. “I just know that you’re destabilizing the table, and the plate’s about to fall.” “If you can’t even make a simple falsifiable prediction,” she asked, kicking the table again, “Why should I believe you?” ---
**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 5, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/25 "2011-09-05T19:04:59Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Asking those who make predictions to make falsifiable ones? Isn’t the _ **opposite** _ a hallmark of pseudo-science? Again, your original line of question was based on horse puckey, to get the right answer you need to make a reasoned question. We already know that you continue to make the questions based on the “is not warming since 1998” myth. Show us that you are learning why that is bananas and then we can explain better what Brickmore said. If you had even an inking of understanding you would had noticed already that a proper answer has to include the numbers of years he mentioned plus the detected warming that has taken place from released CO2 that does not match with the natural forcings already observed. As mentioned before, a lot of cooling should be happening if it was just the natural forcings taking place. Since that is not covered on your misleading simple falsification of the temperature record, it is clear that what you are attempting to get is too simple and still based on a myth. Not that I hold much hope to see you dropping the myths, before you also even complained when I mentioned that the temperature difference found when adding human released CO2 needed to be included in the falsification efforts. That was ignored and you still clung to the myth. The point here is that finding a cooling trend in the recent temperature record would not be enough to debunk the AGW theory, that is only enough to show a cooling trend in a narrow space that makes it meaningless to an statistician or researcher looking at the big picture. Your purpose so far here is not to learn, but continue with the efforts to seed FUD on the people. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/26 "2011-09-05T19:08:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reality is that the context shows that he already acknowledged on a previous discussion that a falsification was given, I just informed recently that it was too simple and ignores other factors: as a minimum, the historical instrumental data recorded. But he can have it if it makes him happy. > > What he can not have is ignoring the evidence that shows this is more complex and his refusal to drop the myth that he used to base his line of questioning just demonstrates that he is not willing to learn, if this is science then one should change his/her position based on the facts, not an out of context quote from the UN climate center. > > He reasons that just because I report now that the issue is more complex than the early falsifiable prediction I made early that therefore that prediction is not good enough; well duh, we already did go through plenty of evidence to show that his demands are based on denialist boiler plate points, it does not stretch the imagination to conclude that the narrow demand is made to then get a falsification that it is not taking into account the big picture. I have no dog in this fight. Tell me, exactly, what falsifiable predictions you have made? The prediction and the falsification criteria. Slee ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/27 "2011-09-05T19:14:49Z")
Can we falsify evolution? How about quantum physics? Probability? ---
**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 5, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/28 "2011-09-05T19:22:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think that’s probably correct. But I think for many politics poisons the other side, as well. Many see it as a phenomenon that should be exploited in order to push all manner of green initiatives. And they point to all manner of natural disaster as further proof it is happening. There was an environmentalist (Scandinavian, I think) who testified to the U.S. Senate right after al Gore did a few years ago. While he agreed with Gore’s general position, he thought they he had grotesquely overblown the case. He also cautioned everyone to slow down on taking drastic action. But when a subject takes on such religious fervor, people rush to act in ways that might not be the most sensible. You are talking about Lonborg. Similarly to what Inigo Montoya would say: I do not think you know what he is actually saying. > **[FAQ](https://lomborg.com/faq)** > [@](#): > > Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists? > > A: No. In Cool It he writes: “global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century” (p8). As his expertise is in economics, his point now is that we should tax carbon emissions to pay for mitigation or adaptation efforts. Economically speaking, it a point that it should be strongly taken into account. But we do now already what deniers will do with that. And once again, religion is not what is driving what researchers and popularizers of science do. The ones who show religious like fanaticism are the deniers by their continuous refusal to drop even the dumbest debunked points. [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/22/207231/debunking-the-dumbest-denier-myth-climate-change-vs-global-warming/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/22/207231/debunking-the-dumbest-denier-myth-climate-change-vs-global-warming/) ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/29 "2011-09-05T19:31:17Z")
Let’s say the earth is, indeed, undergoing global warming. What’s the proof that humans are the primary cause of it? ---
**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 5, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/30 "2011-09-05T19:31:47Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I have no dog in this fight. > > Tell me, exactly, what falsifiable predictions you have made? The prediction and the falsification criteria. > > Slee IIRC I mentioned before on a previous thread, that if 15-20 years of a cooling trend is observed that then that would put a dent on one item of the theory, but as others noticed, that is too simple, we would be ignoring the past data and the fact that there is a lot of cooling that is needed to eliminate the heat brought by the human released CO2. The line of questioning from TOWP avoids this and more. And on top of this, it continues to be based on an out of context UN citation. ---
**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 5, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/31 "2011-09-05T19:33:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reality is that the context shows that he already acknowledged on a previous discussion that a falsification was given, I just informed recently that it was too simple and ignores other factors: as a minimum, the historical instrumental data recorded. But he can have it if it makes him happy. I of course acknowledged the falsification criterion you gave in a previous discussion. In the thread that sparked this pitting, you indeed explained that it was too simple and ignores other factors. I have therefore requested falsification criteria that don’t ignore other factors and are sufficiently complex. > [@](#): > > What he can not have is ignoring the evidence that shows this is more complex and his refusal to drop the myth that he used to base his line of questioning I’m not trying to ignore the evidence that it’s more complex; I’m merely and explicitly requesting falsification criteria that do likewise, if you think more complexity is needed. > [@](#): > > He reasons that just because I report now that the issue is more complex than the early falsifiable prediction I made early that therefore that prediction is not good enough; well duh I reason nothing of the sort. I reason that we can _ **either** _ stick with the prediction you made earlier, _ **or** _ we can take up whatever new falsifiable prediction you’d like to replace it with. If you believe the former isn’t good enough, then supply one that is good enough. > [@](#): > > it does not stretch the imagination to conclude that the narrow demand is made to then get a falsification that it is not taking into account the big picture. I suppose that’s true, if you’re saying you can’t supply falsification criteria that take the big picture into account. > [@](#): > > If you had even an inking of understanding you would had noticed already that a proper answer has to include the numbers of years he mentioned plus the detected warming that has taken place from released CO2 that does not match with the natural forcings already observed. So _ **do that.** _ If, say, you’re out to make falsifiable predictions about warming while carefully building in various if/then statements to compensate for natural forcings, then I’m all ears. > [@](#): > > I mentioned that the temperature difference found when adding human released CO2 needed to be included in the falsification efforts. That was ignored and you still clung to the myth. How should it “be included” in such efforts? You make broad statements that leave too much wiggle room. Look, imagine for a second you (a) have no integrity and (b) find a guy willing to bet money against your claim that the US will do better than China at the next Olympics. And imagine the Olympics come and go and you’re asked to pay up – at which point you say you don’t know what he’s talking about. _China won more medals,_ you’re told. _Yes, but the US won more gold medals,_ you reply. Or: _China won more medals in general and more gold medals in particular,_ you’re told; _Yes, but the US did better if we count a gold medal as three points and a silver as two and a bronze as one,_ you reply. Or: _China won more medals of every color,_ you’re told; _Yes, but the US won more per capita,_ you reply. Or, worst of all: _“That wasn’t good enough,”_ you reply, with no further explanation. If you make a prediction like that – about science or sports or pretty much anything – then I want you to spell out exactly what you’re predicting before the evidence arrives; not after, when you’ll always be able to find an I-Told-You-So. Is that so odd? > [@](#): > > Since that is not covered on your misleading simple falsification of the temperature record, it is clear that what you are attempting to get is too simple and still based on a myth. If you think I’m being misleadingly simple, then be appropriately complex. > [@](#): > > Again, your original line of question was based on horse puckey, to get the right answer you need to make a reasoned question. The only thing my question is based on is whether the predictions at issue are even hypothetically falsifiable. ---
**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 5, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/32 "2011-09-05T19:34:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > IIRC I mentioned before on a previous thread, that if 15-20 years of a cooling trend is observed that then that would put a dent on one item of the theory, but as others noticed, that is too simple, we would be ignoring the past data and the fact that there is a lot of cooling that is needed to eliminate the heat brought by the human released CO2. The line of questioning from TOWP avoids this and more. I’m not avoiding it; I keep asking you for replacement criterion precisely because you’re now dissatisfied with the 15-20 year answer. ---
**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 5, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/33 "2011-09-05T19:43:18Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Let’s say the earth is, indeed, undergoing global warming. What’s the proof that humans are the primary cause of it? To be specific, the point is that humans are the primary cause of the current warming, that does not mean that natural forcings are not here with us still, on the contrary they are taken into account and explain a lot of the variation that gets confused by some as “cooling trends” > **[The human fingerprint in global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm)** > > \The human fingerprint in global warming is evident in multiple lines of empirical evidence - in satellite measurements of outgoing infrared radiation, in surface measurements of downward infrared radiation, in the cooling stratosphere and other... > [@](#): > > The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels: > > 1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. > 2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide. > 3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.) > 4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply. > > Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat: > > 1. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs. > 2. Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface. > > The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming: > **[The human fingerprint in global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm)** > > \The human fingerprint in global warming is evident in multiple lines of empirical evidence - in satellite measurements of outgoing infrared radiation, in surface measurements of downward infrared radiation, in the cooling stratosphere and other... > [@](#): > > Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming. Almost universally, empirical observations confirm that these ‘fingerprints’ of anthropogenic global warming are present. ---
**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 5, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/34 "2011-09-05T19:44:44Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not avoiding it; I keep asking you for replacement criterion precisely because you’re now dissatisfied with the 15-20 year answer. Will you drop your stupid point that is not warming since 1998? ---
**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 5, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/35 "2011-09-05T19:45:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Can we falsify evolution? How about quantum physics? Probability? Why not? Show me that the data supporting evolution has all been fatally flawed, and then show me that there’s no genetic relationship between either any current species or any past species, and I’ll accept that as falsification of evolution. Similar techniques would suffice to falsify the others. Which gets to a key point: to falsify AGW, it’s not sufficient to have weird future results. You’d need to explain the problems with current results. I believe that my incandescent light bulb lights up because of the electricity passing through it. You can certainly falsify that, too, but doing so will require a pretty compelling explanation of everything I’ve observed up to this point. ---
**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 5, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/36 "2011-09-05T20:09:39Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > So here’s to you, you gang of frothing unquestioning knuckle-dragging toadies for your corporate and media masters, both those who have been paid-both here and elsewhere-yes this Pitting isn’t limited to the Dope-and those who are too dumb and nonintrospective to realize just how much of a gang of tools (& fools) they are and have been played for.. So, if I’m not a Republican and I don’t watch Fox, I can’t be a sceptic? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Easy. (1) The models have indeed been validated against past data, and therefore have passed all the falsifiability tests currently available. (2) If you wait for predictions about the future to be validated as well, the time to act on them will have already passed, and it will always continue to be possible for you to continue to stubbornly demand something you can no longer deny is “proof” even then. (3) Since you know that too, or should, then the demand you make of \*\*Gigo \*\*is equivalent to a demand that the science be ignored. (4) You offer no competing data or models instead, simply denial. (5) Ergo you aren’t a “skeptic”, no matter how much you may console yourself with the term, but merely a stubborn denialist, a spreader of ignorance. The models have not been validated, The have been tweaked to fit the past. > [@elucidator](#): > > Can we falsify evolution? How about quantum physics? Probability? Can I quote you on that? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > My daughter kept kicking the dinner table really hard. “Careful!” I said. “Your plate is about to fall off the table!” > “Oh yeah?” she said. “I’m skeptical. If you’re so smart, tell me: is it going to fall right-side up, or upside down?” > “I don’t know,” I said. “I just know that you’re destabilizing the table, and the plate’s about to fall.” > “If you can’t even make a simple falsifiable prediction,” she asked, kicking the table again, “Why should I believe you?” Yeah, a simple one- or two- variable problem is exactly like AGW. Poor girl. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Additionally, accepting the reality of the science entails embracing policy approaches that are completely antithetical to the rugged-individualist, government-sucks, Randian attitudes they (are trained to) spout. Presenting facts and analysis is simply not enough to get the recipient to reject or even question an entire worldview. You might as well ask them to deny their religion. > > And it lets them continue to make inane cracks about Al Gore. I love it when you have to fit your mental models to reality. Deniers have to be like that, because if you accepted the possibility of them being infromed it will break your model ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/37 "2011-09-05T20:18:33Z")
The one thing every hard core denier has in common is that they’re too stupid to understand _what they don’t understand_. They’re so ignorant, they think that they, with no education whatsoever in the field, can just look at the data and judge it for themselves. Stupidity, backed by arrogance into a composite armor that’s all but impenetrable wrapped around their brain. “What? Tens of thousands of professional PhD level scientists agree on something, representing over 95% of the world’s experts on the subject? Well, just let me take a look at the data and find out where they fucked up, hyuck, hyuck.” All because they simply will not accept a world where man can alter the atmosphere, because it either challenges their religious beliefs (God wouldn’t let that happen) or they’re just too dim to visualize how big man’s footprint is on this planet. I now return you to the knelling cluck of imbeciles. ---
**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 5, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/38 "2011-09-05T20:21:20Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The models have not been validated, The have been tweaked to fit the past. This is a lie. > **[How reliable are climate models?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm)** > > \While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.\ > [@](#): > > While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Can I quote you on that? I’m afraid you need to look the definition of sarcasm in a dictionary. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yeah, a simple one- or two- variable problem is exactly like AGW. > Poor girl. Way to miss the point, the girl was a jerk. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I love it when you have to fit your mental models to reality. Deniers have to be like that, because if you accepted the possibility of them being infromed it will break your model So far you have demonstrated that you enjoy consuming disinformation, There was already a cite showing the lead scientist of the CERN experiment dismissing the interpretation deniers gave to his experiment on clouds, showing that what I mentioned to you regarding the limitations of the experiment were based on the facts. So here is your chance, show us that you do like to check the science and accept the evidence: [http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/#more-6113](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/#more-6113) > [@](#): > > Recently, experiments were undertaken by Dr. Kirkby (interviewed above) at the European Atom smasher facility, – CERN – to learn more about the particle interactions that might validate this theory. The publication of his recent paper on the results has been bouncing around in the denialosphere as yet another “final nail in the coffin of man-caused global warming”. > > Dr. Kirkby’s take, as you hear in the interview — not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/39 "2011-09-05T20:46:50Z")
Thank you for the OP. I’ve been meaning to express some form of support or appreciation for GIGO’s efforts, whether in a thread or a PM, but laziness has prevailed—for that I am sorry. A large amount of my work is in the field. I have a background in Earth science from Columbia University (technically only a minor; I was one class short of a major but had already completed two others and ran out of funding to stay for the extra time). Most of my work, though, is in the policy realm and largely focused on the developing world. As such, for many years now my direct connection with the IPCC and other hard-science research and advocacy is relatively small. I could not hope to counter the denialist claims with the same deftness, clarity, and thoroughness as GIGO. Perhaps most of all, I lack the patience. Most of my efforts are addressed at policy makers and those implementing various programmes. However, I recognize that grassroots-level advocacy and holding back the tide of for-profit deniers and politically motivated caterwaulers is essential. I am not referring to the day-to-day grind of responding to basic criticisms and critiques geared towards finding actual flaws in theories and models, but the vapid nipping at the heels of those who intentionally spread lies—that many here seem to have fallen for such tactics and are now mimicking such antics highlights the need for someone with the background, patience, and persistence to bring rationality and coherence to bare, lest others without time or resources fall victim to the same basic lack of understanding and fundamental logic fails that draw in new denialists, truthers, birthers, and intelligent designers. Thank you, GIGO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . **OWP** et al: You’re being pitted for, among other things, a politically-based adherence to a scientifically fruitless set of talking points—under the same thin veil Glenn Beck uses when “just asking questions” or Ben Stein uses in Expelled. It’s disingenuous at best; intentionally ignorant at worst. (I may have the order of those backwards.) To play your game, consider the following statements. Which of them fail on ‘falsification’ grounds, such that the general conclusion _“if we do not curb greenhouse gas emissions over the next fifty years, the climate system (and related localized weather patterns) will show observable changes”_ is wrong? [ul] [li]Greenhouse gases are translucent to ultraviolet radiation.[/li][li]Greenhouse gases are relatively opaque to infrared radiation.[/li][li]Greenhouse gases trap energy in the atmosphere.[/li][li]Over the past two hundred years, we have measurably changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere. [/li][li]Climate, including global average temperatures and large-scale weather interactions, is affected by the amount of energy in the system.[/li][li]Climate is a complex system, such that climate and weather patterns are affected on a global scale by relatively small-scale perturbations in interlinked mechanisms (e.g. El Niño events).[/li][li]When the climate system has reacted to various changes in its constituent parts, the resulting short- medium- and long-term periods of homeostasis have significantly differed from previous periods of relative homeostasis. [/li][li]China, India, and the rest of the developing world’s populations are six to seven times that of the developed world (figure very general, feel free to correct).[/li][li]As China, India, et al pursue a carbon-dependant development path similar to the West (i.e. absent any consideration of emissions), the amount of greenhouse gas emissions will be at least an order of magnitude greater than today’s—if not more.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/40 "2011-09-05T21:34:49Z")
These are always the worst Pit threads. It only takes about four posts before they just become a copy of whatever retarded GD thread spawned it in the first place. Look at you all, you are going to slabber for twenty pages about the same stuff you were already slabbering about in the GD threads. Oh well, keep fighting the good fight I suppose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=3)