# 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:** 22
**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 15, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/421 "2011-09-15T21:34:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already done, but you do not like the answer. It is very straightforward, falsify the 10 basic fingerprints and you are there No, not that part; the other part. You were equally straightforward when explaining the following: _“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.”_ As per that quote, I merely want you to spell out what data would no longer fit the estimated projections. > [@](#): > > Point being that wile you are continuing to huff and puff assuming that the falsifications are not there, skeptical researchers already know them, and do not care one bit about your nowhere man efforts. You already grant that “some data” wouldn’t fit the estimated projections; I’m huffing and puffing until you simply name what said data would be. ---
**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 15, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/422 "2011-09-15T21:37:17Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, not that part; the other part. > > You were equally straightforward when explaining the following: _“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.”_ As per that quote, I merely want you to spell out what data would no longer fit the estimated projections. Fantasy only produces fantasy, until the evidence points otherwise keep living with disappointment, I defer to the experts and it is the experts you need to deal with. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You already grant that “some data” wouldn’t fit the estimated projections; I’m huffing and puffing until you simply name what said data would be. There is a link to the research already made, not my problem that you are ignoring it. ---
**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 15, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/423 "2011-09-15T21:38:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There is a link to the research already made, not my problem that you are ignoring it. I’m not asking for “the research already made”. I’m asking what hypothetical evidence, in days yet to come, would not fit estimated projections. ---
**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 15, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/424 "2011-09-15T21:50:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The only bad he was referring to was the denialists efforts that are funded by oil producers, it is a wonder how you got all that from his post. What nonsense. It’s clear that the simplistic idiots view is that **all skepticism and challenges** to the doom and gloomers predictions are only because of money. As the fuckholes would put it: > [@](#): > > Peter Christoff, writing in _[The Age](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age)_ in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from [skepticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism), which is essential for good science. He went to say that “almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the ‘big’ debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying [scientific theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory), or the broad projections, of climate change.” > **[Climate change denial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial)** > > Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the scientific consensus on climate change which exists due to extensive and diverse empirical evidence. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none. Climate change denial includes unreasonable doubts about the extent to which climate change is caused by hum Ma... That is pure batshit crazy talk. It’s trying to paint all skeptics and critics of your belief system as the same, in other words, simply oil company toadies who are only deniers because of money and profit. Bullshit. I fucking hate oil companies, and the entire militaryindustrial complex, as well as the media lapdogs and shills pimping for who ever signs their paycheck. I loath coal burning, mining and the waste from it all. It’s fuckhole crazy to label anyone who questions the outrageous claims and predictions of climate warmers as being deniers of science. That the idiots don’t get that, it’s why I pit them. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/425 "2011-09-15T21:55:31Z")
[Moderating] I’ve merged **FXMasterMind** ’s pit thread about global warming with this one. The OP from the other thread is now post number 370. [/Moderating] ---
**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 15, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/426 "2011-09-15T22:07:01Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not asking for “the research already made”. I’m asking what hypothetical evidence, in days yet to come, would not fit estimated projections. Yep, he does not like the answer, on this item there are no projections (yet another bit that demonstrated you are not reading the cites.) > **[Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?](https://skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm)** > > \The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper... > [@](#): > > The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, that less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases. You only need to demonstrate that more long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving. ---
**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 15, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/427 "2011-09-15T22:13:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You only need to demonstrate that more long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving. I’m asking whether, if there’s no warming – and possibly even some cooling? – over a given span of years, your predictions will be falsified regardless of what’s happening with long-wave radiation. What degree of warming do you predict, on what timetable? ---
**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 15, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/428 "2011-09-15T22:15:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > [Moderating] > I’ve merged **FXMasterMind** ’s pit thread about global warming with this one. The OP from the other thread is now post number 370. > [/Moderating] It wasn’t about global warming, it was about idiots who don’t get it. But still, nice move. ---
**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 15, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/429 "2011-09-15T22:19:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m asking whether, if there’s no warming – and possibly even some cooling? – over a given span of years, your predictions will be falsified regardless of what’s happening with long-wave radiation. What degree of warming do you predict, on what timetable? Boy you are dense, this is one of the basic ones, and you only want to run away from it now. The nano second it is noticed that more long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving then one just need to confirm it and then it will be clear that whatever is happening we do not need to worry about this as it would be also likely that the following research will point to mechanisms that we were not aware of that could take care of the CO2 warming. ---
**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 15, 2011, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/430 "2011-09-15T22:20:30Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It wasn’t about global warming, it was about idiots who don’t get it. But still, nice move. Uh, it is clear that they are branding you a hypocritical denier that needs pitting. Ok, it was a nice move. 🙂 ---
**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 15, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/431 "2011-09-15T22:23:49Z")
Gigo has made one out of every four post in this thread. Flooding a thread doesn’t mean you are winning. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/432 "2011-09-15T22:29:38Z")
[QUOTE=FXMastermind] Gigo has made one out of every four post in this thread. Flooding a thread doesn’t mean you are winning. [/QUOTE] This is pretty much off the scale, irony-wise. Burns with the fires of 10,000,000 suns and all that… -XT ---
**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 15, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/433 "2011-09-15T22:32:11Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > This is pretty much off the scale, irony-wise. Burns with the fires of 10,000,000 suns and all that… > > -XT Indeed, as I said before, they are the poster boys of “the stupid, it burns” saying. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/434 "2011-09-15T22:56:35Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Please. It’s like scientists figured out guns and bombs are the main reason for sudden unexpected death and suffering in war torn countries. Then they tell the world everybody has to stop using guns and bombs. As you, yourself, said a couple posts earlier, “You say that is if this is a bad thing!” (Grin!) Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/435 "2011-09-15T23:03:36Z")
I have a question… In an earlier post (oops, can’t find it) **GIGObuster** said that “CAGW” is a “warning phrase” – a kind of “Feynman alert” – that indicates a bias or agenda. I tried to find the phrase using Google, and only find “Citizens Against Government Waste.” What is CAGW in this context, and why is it a give-away? (Honest question: I really know next to effing NOTHING about climate science. I’m barely able to use a thermometer; the use of the barometer so far wholly escapes me!) (But…I really like **GIGObuster**. He blows the opposition away in debate technique! I want to be like him when I grow up!) Trinopus (foolish, ignorant, and childlike…but trying to learn and grow) ---
**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 15, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/436 "2011-09-15T23:09:48Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > (bolding added) > So **GIGObuster** must _personally_ run a model rather than relying on those from climate scientists? :dubious: > **Ají de Gallina** , don’t give me your cites, but what is your personal number for the drag coefficient of a 737 at cruising speed and altitude? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yep. like \*\*wevets \*\*said, what Aji is doing is running away from science, it seems that the Aji does think that it is always better to deal with an anonymous guy on the web to deal with the “secrets” of the universe. 🙂 No, what I want is the number first of all. Then, he can clog the server with cites, but I don’t want a linky-linky answer so that he can run away saying “you didn’t read the the third paper hinted in fourth link found in the webpage of the lead researche’s common-law-wife written in Assyrian”. See? Instead of the answer, a number, I get yet another list of reason why I’m dumb and deluded. I’m most assuredly am dumb and deluded, but still get no answer. GB has given lots of cite here and in other threads, from proper AGW places. I’ve read some of them and have read tens of other from other people. I don’t want to know what other people who are not in this thread think, I want GB’s answer, his own answer, the asnwer he gives in somebody at work says “hey, GB, what’s the CO2-doublin’-temp increase, man”. I’m sure he doesn’t start writing the url for the pdf of the IPCC fourth assessment, he says “about 34.76”, that’s the number I want. **wevets** , I promise that when we have a thread about 737s, I’ll give you straight answrs. ---
**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 15, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/437 "2011-09-15T23:12:37Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I usually ignore idiots, there is no percentage in arguing with them. Nice trick ignoring yourself all the time-explains a lot actually. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh, it is clear that they are branding you a hypocritical denier that needs pitting. > > Ok, it was a nice move. 🙂 And while we’re on the subject, it’s amazing when I see that some people don’t know when to quit (or even the meaning of the term)-they just all moved their ignorant asses on over here to this thread and continued carrying on like nothing has happened, and the irony is still completely lost on them. **GIGO** keeps handing them their figurative heads, and yet they keep asking for seconds. **GIGO** you need to setup a headhunter’s shop-you’d make millions selling to wizards and witch doctors and sorceresses and such-“Oh yes over here we have the Obsessive Ignorant AGW Denier’s section; when you squeeze their little heads, an aroma of stale moose manure is emitted.” ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/438 "2011-09-15T23:40:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > What is CAGW in this context, and why is it a give-away? CAGW stands for “Catastrohpic Anthropogenic Global Warming.” To my mind, the word “catastrophic” is probably a bit of an overstatement, but the point is that one needs to distinguish between mild warming and serious warming. For example, global surface temperatures probably increased by about a degree over the last 100 years or so. However, this has not had serious negative effects. See, it’s one thing to claim that increased levels of CO2 will cause global surface temperatures to rise a bit. It’s another thing entirely to claim that any such temperature increases will be significantly amplified through water vapor feedback and cause significant harm to humanity and/or the environment. I have written the following on my blog: > [@](#): > > The issue to be debated is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Specifically, the hypothesis that mankind’s CO2 emissions will, if unchecked, result in amplified warming resulting in serious negative consequences to mankind and/or the rest of the environment. > > I am not interested in debating whether the climate has warmed in recent years. Clearly by some measures it has. Nor am I interested in debating whether CO2 emissions have the potential to increase global temperatures. Clearly they do. > > The hypothesis being advanced by global warming alarmists is that CO2 emissions will cause temperatures to increase, which will increase levels of water vapor, which will cause further temperature increases, etc. etc., until a point where there are serious negative consequences to mankind. That’s the CAGW hypothesis. > > If the CAGW hypothesis is correct, then mankind must take significant measures to limit CO2 emissions. > > I have found that many alarmists try to shift the debate from CAGW to some other hypothesis, for example the much weaker hypothesis that mankind’s activities will have some effect on the Earth’s climate — which I refer to as the AGCC Hypothesis. The distinction is as follows: If the AGCC Hypothesis is correct, it does not necessarily follow that mankind must take significant measures to limit CO2 emissions. Does that make sense? ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/439 "2011-09-16T00:01:45Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Nice trick ignoring yourself all the time-explains a lot actually. > > And while we’re on the subject, it’s amazing when I see that some people don’t know when to quit (or even the meaning of the term)-they just all moved their ignorant asses on over here to this thread and continued carrying on like nothing has happened, and the irony is still completely lost on them. **GIGO** keeps handing them their figurative heads, and yet they keep asking for seconds. **GIGO** you need to setup a headhunter’s shop-you’d make millions selling to wizards and witch doctors and sorceresses and such-“Oh yes over here we have the Obsessive Ignorant AGW Denier’s section; when you squeeze their little heads, an aroma of stale moose manure is emitted.” No, Gigo is doing his usual duck and dive. I like Gigo but on this subject he is less than objective. His standard method is to duck questions and label anyone who has any question a denier. Or link to other sites instead of making an actual argument. It is bullshit, sloppy and if it the subject were different he’d be raked over the coals for it. Science is about asking questions. Yet the standard procedure when it comes to climate change is to label anyone who does not accept it unquestioningly as a denier and pretend that the argument has been won. It is stupid and silly. There are some rather smart folks who have issues with the science. Freeman Dyson comes to mind. I know some others who have worked with or looked deeply at the models (a couple LANL guys and some folks who did nuclear winter modeling back in the day) and they have not been impressed. This isn’t to say that the people are not working hard on this or that they are not smart. It is that it a huge undertaking. There are three things you need to deal with when studying a subject: that which you know, that which you do not know and that which you do not know you do not know. Contrary to what Gigo says, from what I can tell there is a whole lot of things we do not know we do not know. For example, last year it was found that the solar wind is imparting energy to the atmoshpere in a totally unexpected way. No one expected the result. Obviously since no one knew about it, it could not be modeled. Now, it could be that this finding is trivial. Or not. The issue is that no one knew about it. How many other things are out there that we do not know but ought to? Furthermore, from what I have looked at, some of the models suck. The leaked CRU code had some very big issues. It sucks. Do a quick google search and you can find critiques on it. Slee ---
**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 16, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/440 "2011-09-16T00:16:47Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > This is pretty much off the scale, irony-wise. Indeed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=23)