# 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:** 23
**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, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/441 "2011-09-16T00:18:21Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > 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. Yep. And it seems that those who do it are blind to what they are doing. Meanwhile they give each other a reach around, slap some palms and whoop it up, confident that they are 100% right. It’s embarrassing. Especially since a couple of years ago I was doing the same stupid shit. ---
**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 16, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/442 "2011-09-16T00:23:49Z")
You were giving yourself embarrassing reach arounds and slappin some palm??? :eek: -XT ---
**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, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/443 "2011-09-16T00:29:04Z")
Oh yeah. Pwning deniers left and right. I used to get a stiffy everytime I showed some denier up. ---
**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, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/444 "2011-09-16T00:30:28Z")
I’m so ashamed now. I wasn’t skeptical about it at all. I even did the “what’s the use?” phase where I was sure we were all doomed and there was no way to stop the warming, the coral bleaching, the oceans rising, the runaway greenhouse, the methane, the disease and droughts, the horrible storms, the end of the world man. I was an idiot. ---
**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 16, 2011, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/445 "2011-09-16T01:18:17Z")
By chance, do you have a Youtube video you want to share and are ‘just asking questions’? Just curious… -XT ---
**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, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/446 "2011-09-16T01:20:20Z")
That reminds me. Do you know about this total tool? [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/vvztL9r47MI/hqdefault.jpg "20 - Are cosmic rays causing global warming?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI) He is the crowning achievement of a scientific denier. ---
**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 16, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/447 "2011-09-16T02:21:23Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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. Well at least he is sincere. 🙂 Give it up, your CO2 “science” was a stooge for the energy companies, the “luminaries” that they use are the same old discredited skeptics and now mostly deniers. As the cite I made just 2 posts after your swill cite shows, the CO2 “science” .org does not care that they misrepresent the paper that was actually peer reviewed. ---
**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 16, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/448 "2011-09-16T02:28:33Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That reminds me. Do you know about this total tool? > > [http://youtu.be/vvztL9r47MI](http://youtu.be/vvztL9r47MI) > > He is the crowning achievement of a scientific denier. You are really deluded, it was from him that I learned to check the published science and dismiss second hand bloggers. > [@](#): > > I know the blogs will tell you that that a correlation between cosmic rays and temperature has been shown, and once you believe this it may be hard to convince you of the science. However let’s have a go… > There are two supposed correlations: > Svensmark and Friis Kristensen wrote a paper on a correlation between sunspots and temperature during the 20th century, which they attributed to the varying intensity of cosmic rays with solar activity. However, this turned out to be the result of a mathematical error. Cosmic rays have been measured over the last 50 years and they vary with the 11-year solar cycle. There has been no increase at all, whereas average global temperatures have been increasing. > Shaviv and Veiser wrote a paper on a correlation between cosmic rays caused by the Earth’s passage through our galaxy’s spiral arms and global temperature over the last 500 million years. But Rahmstorf and others showed that Shaviv and Veizer may have misinterpreted the meteorite data on which the periodicity that passage was calculated, and the model doesn’t fit the data well anyway (by comparison, there’s an almost perfect correlation between CO2 levsla dn global temps over the same period.) while the press release that accompanied Shaviv and Veizer’s paper announced that their results showed that recent global warming can be explained by galactic cosmic rays, the paper itself said that that recent global warming canNOT be explained by galactic cosmic rays. As I said in my video, read the scientific papers, not the blogs. As with the case of [CO2science.org](http://CO2science.org) the published paper does not say what they wanted, as they say in technical places, Read the F\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Manual, one should read the scientific paper not misleading bloggers. ---
**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 16, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/449 "2011-09-16T02:53:59Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > 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. Then it should be easy to find examples were I was misleading others, lets have them or shut up. > [@sleestak](#): > > 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. Not when they come with the same baloney and then they double it up by denying that the baloney was already debunked. > [@sleestak](#): > > 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. Dyson has admitted that he is no longer involved with the current science. > [@sleestak](#): > > 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? Until that bridge is crossed one has to rely on the best evidence available, as the guy who had to resign from the fallout of the Spence paper said, one paper does not overturn all the previous science. > [@sleestak](#): > > 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 And that was debunked already, it was not seen as a problem by all the investigations and reviews made after , you are still peddling reheated baloney. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote\_mining\_code.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php) > **[RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/)** > > RealClimate: CRU hack, "climategate" context, fudge factors, Kevin Trenberth travesty, Wigley, hide the decline, Mann's Nature trick, UEA emails, Climate Research, Soon and Baliunas, peer-review [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/09/208050/vindicating-climate-science/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/09/208050/vindicating-climate-science/) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/450 "2011-09-16T04:09:26Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 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. > > . . . Does that make sense? Aye, and thanks! It seems like a valid concept to me. I mean, if sea levels rise five centimeters, that’s not catastrophic. If they rise five meters…holy grud! (Say good bye to most of Florida and Cuba!) (And, since this is the Pit…Good Riddance!) Ahem… Sorry… Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/451 "2011-09-16T05:39:31Z")
**Gigo,** [I came across this](http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/?test=latestnews) and was wondering your stance on it. > [@](#): > > Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.” > > \ > > Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.” I haven’t read the thread today, so my apologies to all if this was already posted. ---
**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, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/452 "2011-09-16T11:12:35Z")
You can expect another Gish Gallop from Gigo ---
**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, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/453 "2011-09-16T11:16:04Z")
> [@](#): > > For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. > > It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. [http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/](http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/) This isn’t some denier. Or somebody the true warmers can just ignore. “_The global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it… has corrupted so many scientists_” – Harold Lewis Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board Well, OK they can ignore him, but it just drives home the point. ---
**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 16, 2011, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/454 "2011-09-16T12:47:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > this is one of the basic ones, and you only want to run away from it now. It’s not that I “only want to run away from it now”. I’ve quite consistently wanted to know what amount of warming you’re predicting, on what timetable, for quite a long while. > [@](#): > > 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. And if that _ **doesn’t** _ happen – if the long-wave radiation _ **doesn’t** _ start behaving in that way – then what data, if any, would be inconsistent with your predictions? [QUOTE=JohnDiFool] 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 [/QUOTE] I keep asking for GIGO’s specific prediction; he predicts “warming,” and I want to know what warming he predicts on what timetable – and what lack of warming, on what timetable, would falsify his predictions. I carry on like nothing has happened _ **because** _ nothing has happened; he ducks and dives here the same way he did there. ---
**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, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/455 "2011-09-16T13:06:05Z")
I’m watching almost the exact same thing happen on another forum. The person proposing they are 100% right and “the science is settled” simply refuses to say what the science is, what is 100% settled, what the consensus is. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Know\_Nothing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f04885/32.png) [@I\_Know\_Nothing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Know_Nothing)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/456 "2011-09-16T13:47:36Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And if that _ **doesn’t** _ happen – if the long-wave radiation _ **doesn’t** _ start behaving in that way – then what data, if any, would be inconsistent with your predictions? As a non climate expert, this is what confounds me about anti AGWs. Increase in long wave radiation=warming. The two phrases are interchangeable right?. So are you saying there can be warming(increase in long wave radiation) but no warming? I don’t get it. The home experiment I linked to earlier shows how greenhouse gasses work. Take an enclosed container, take temp, put CO2 in enclosed container, take temp again and its hotter. Does it matter whether the enclosed container is a 2 liter bottle or an earth, or whether the source of CO2 is dry ice or fossil fuel combustion? > [@](#): > > I keep asking for GIGO’s specific prediction; he predicts “warming,”… With what we know about the physical properties of CO2, what else would he predict? What would you predict would happen with higher levels of CO2? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/457 "2011-09-16T13:56:30Z")
> [@I\_Know\_Nothing](#): > > As a non climate expert, this is what confounds me about anti AGWs. Possibly the reason you are confounded is that you have been misled about what exactly is in controversy. I am an “anti” and yet I fully concede that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are likely to cause an increase in global surface temperatures. See, “global warming” is really a compound hypothesis. Warmists assert that (1) increased CO2 levels are likely to result in an increase in global surface temperatures AND (2) any such increase will be significantly amplified because of water vapor feedback. I hope that clears up your confusion. ---
**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 16, 2011, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/458 "2011-09-16T14:06:08Z")
> [@I\_Know\_Nothing](#): > > As a non climate expert, this is what confounds me about anti AGWs. Increase in long wave radiation=warming. The two phrases are interchangeable right?. So are you saying there can be warming(increase in long wave radiation) but no warming? I’m asking what amount of warming he’s predicting. Is he predicting a rise in temperature (of a certain number of degrees, or tenths of a degree) over a given span of years (or decades)? Can he specify a length of time during which a lack of warming (or, perhaps, cooling) would falsify his predictions? Or, when he predicts _“warming,”_ is he merely predicting that _“there will be an increase in long-wave radiation, but the global temperature may stay the same for decade after decade after decade after decade – or possibly decrease for decade after decade after decade after decade; who knows?”_ > [@](#): > > With what we know about the physical properties of CO2, what else would he predict? What would you predict would happen with higher levels of CO2? I’m not the one making a prediction. GIGO predicts warming – for the reasons you name – and yet refuses to answer much the same question you’re asking: what, exactly, does he predict will happen? What data would be incompatible with his “warming” prediction? Does he predict a one-degree rise or a three-degree rise in temperature by 2050? Would a tenth-of-a-degree rise (or a one-degree _ **drop** _) falsify his claims? Or, as I was saying, is it that he’s predicting no rise in temperature at all when he predicts “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 16, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/459 "2011-09-16T14:10:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > **Gigo,** [I came across this](http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/?test=latestnews) and was wondering your stance on it. > > I haven’t read the thread today, so my apologies to all if this was already posted. First, it is Fox news, even before this thread and on this one we already do know that their position is to seed doubts on the issue. > **[Editor who published controversial climate paper resigns, blasts media](https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/09/editor-of-journal-behind-controversial-climate-paper-resigns/)** > > The editor of a journal that has published a controversial paper on climate … > [@](#): > > The issue here wasn’t the controversy; it was that the paper was most probably wrong. “The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view…” Wagner argues, “but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.” And, in Wagner’s opinion, papers that contain methodological errors or erroneous conclusions are supposed to be caught by peer review and shouldn’t be published. Since one was published on his watch, he’s resigning. > > But not before taking a parting shot at the media. Writing that he would “like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements,” he specifically cites the University of Alabama, Huntsville press release and Spencer’s writings on his website as part of the exaggeration; the Forbes article that triggered our own coverage, along with a follow-up from **Fox News** , But then I was also aware of what FOX even points at: > [@](#): > > The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide. The context shows that he resigned because of his opinions, not because the facts were telling him. A former darling blog of the conservatives: little green footballs, former as it did noticed how off the deep end many conservatives are going in their efforts to deny science and other things, comments thus: > [@](#): > > Some might think that this does not prove a sell out - only a collaboration with these groups. That would require believing that a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart - because he believes his contrary “science” so much that he had to speak out - but he does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed. > > If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere. But he hasn’t. > > Of course he is getting paid. Of course Heartland pays its “experts.” There is no other motivation for a respect scientist to act so unscientifically and tarnish an otherwise sterling reputation. Incidentally he already had made known that he was an skeptical scientists, but as been noticed already here, skeptical scientists know also the score, specially when they are not willing to submit papers that support their now fading views. This is just like Hal Lewis resigning before, the enthusiasm seen by bloggers for this “new” resignation (old news as he already told us he did not like where the consensus was going) [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/11/206850/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/11/206850/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/) So, unimportant. ---
**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 16, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/460 "2011-09-16T14:12:23Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You can expect another Gish Gallop from Gigo A gish gallop can be taken care of by point out at one single link that does not show Ghat you are talking about, do you have any? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=24)