# 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:** 24
**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, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/461 "2011-09-16T14:15:34Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [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. It drives the point of the process how even men of science become unimportant or irrelevant. [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/) > [@](#): > > Seriously. Or, rather, not serious in the least bit. > > First off, he apparently doesn’t know what the word “literally” means — I’d like to assume he knows what the word “trillions” mean. But then he repeats and insists on trillions. Where the frig are all these trillions of dollars? America’s entire GDP is $14 trillion. There are tens of millions of dollars involved, to be sure, although only a small fraction of that money ends up in the hands of U.S. physicists, who really are only a small part of climate science research. So it is hard to see how the APS could be corrupted by it. > > Second, it is just absurd for him to say that climate scientists are somehow corrupted by “the fame and glory” — that was precisely what motivated many of the giants. And as a trivial aside, travel was always one of the perks of being a big-league physicist. Heck, they actually had sabbaticals every seven years! > > Third, the Inhofe-esque statement “this is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist,” accuses the scientific community broadly defined of conspiring in deliberate fraud – and not just the community of climate scientists, but the leading National Academies of Science around the world (including ours) and the American Geophysical Union, an organization of geophysicists that consists of more than 45,000 members and the American Meteorological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see “Yet more scientists call for deep GHG cuts“). Such a statement accuses all of the member governments of the IPCC, including ours, of participating in that conspiracy, since they all sign off on the Assessment Reports word for word. And it accuses all of the leading scientific journals of being in on this fraud, since the IPCC reports are primarily a review and synthesis of the published scientific literature. > > Fourth, “Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.” Well, if you are getting most of your “facts” from Nostradamus Montford, well, I daresay that’s the very definition of no longer engaging in the scientific method. See, for instance, the outstanding Real Climate post, “The Montford Delusion.” > > The letter is devoid of any actual critique of climate science ---
**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, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/462 "2011-09-16T14:20:52Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. > > 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? > > 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. Nah, there is already the IPCC with the most likely predictions, what I’m doing and you are so dense to see it is that I’m turning your denialist tactics around, the main reason why you need (what you think it is, an uneducated guess) is that you will nitpick it to death by you and your gang, what I conscientiously demonstrate is that the constant ducking of what the science paper say demonstrates how out of deep this subject is, and the longer you go at it the dumber you look to others. I’m here to help in the process to make sure you are a warning to others. 🙂 ---
**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, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/463 "2011-09-16T14:25:38Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 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. Of course he even denies that evidence for that is already here, but he is a happy nowhere man. [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor\_warming.html](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html) > [@](#): > > Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change > > Still from animation showing global distribution of atmospheric water vapor The distribution of atmospheric water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, varies across the globe. During the summer and fall of 2005, this visualization shows that most vapor collects at tropical latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms swept the gas some 2 miles above the land. > > Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change. > > Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. > [@](#): > > With new observations, **the scientists confirmed experimentally** what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters. Yes, they put it to the test. It is science, deal with 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 16, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/464 "2011-09-16T14:33:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nah, there is already the IPCC with the most likely predictions Yes, there is. You indeed wrote: _“There you can have that falsification”_. However, you also wrote – in the sentence right next to that one – the following rider: _“As pointed out before, we are dealing with the falsification of only one aspect of the whole thing.”_ I’m asking you what would falsify the whole thing. If you’re now saying _“the whole thing”_ rather than _“only one aspect”_ will be falsified if that predicted amount of warming doesn’t come to pass, then I’m content. If, however, you’re still sticking with the _“only one aspect”_ point, then I want to know what hypothetical data would falsify _“the whole thing”_. > [@](#): > > what I’m doing and you are so dense to see it is that I’m turning your denialist tactics around, the main reason why you need (what you think it is, an uneducated guess) is that you will nitpick it to death by you and your gang In that I’ll note whether the prediction comes to pass or not, and then point out whether or not it came to pass? > [@](#): > > I’m here to help in the process to make sure you are a warning to others. I’m here to make sure your predictions are falsifiable. ---
**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, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/465 "2011-09-16T14:45:29Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If, however, you’re still sticking with the _“only one aspect”_ point, then I want to know what hypothetical data would falsify _“the whole thing”_. Maybe we have to repeat it tree times like in Beetlejuice? We need to falsify the 10 fingerprints already discussed for the whole thing to fall down. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m here to make sure your predictions are falsifiable. And so far they are, but you are even denying that. So how about them skeptics last attempt at one of those items? [http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html](http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html) ---
**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, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/466 "2011-09-16T14:48:25Z")
Gish Gallop as expected ---
**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, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/467 "2011-09-16T14:51:49Z")
> [@I\_Know\_Nothing](#): > > As a non climate expert, this is what confounds me about anti AGWs. Increase in long wave radiation=warming. First off, it isn’t simple, like some would try to sell you. For example, increased heat can lead to increased evaporation/transpiration of water. Which leads to clouds, which causes decreased temperatures. So more heat can cause cooling of the lower atmosphere, and increased reflection of sunlight. Same thing can happen with ocean circulation/wind effects. It’s why the Pacific ocean is such a driver of temperatures and climate. Which isn’t hard to fathom when you realize the Pacific ocean is actually half the planet. ---
**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, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/468 "2011-09-16T14:58:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Maybe we have to repeat it tree times like in Beetlejuice? > > We need to falsify the 10 fingerprints already discussed for the whole thing to fall down. No, we don’t. I already asked you to assume for the sake of argument that none of the 10 are falsified but the planet gets no warmer, and possibly gets cooler, for decades and even centuries to come; _would your predictions,_ I asked, _then be true?_ Your reply: _“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.”_ So you’ve already _ **mentioned** _ the answer without naming it; my question is merely: _ **what** _ data wouldn’t fit the estimated projections? ---
**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, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/469 "2011-09-16T15:20:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, we don’t. I already asked you to assume for the sake of argument that none of the 10 are falsified but the planet gets no warmer, and possibly gets cooler, for decades and even centuries to come; _would your predictions,_ I asked, _then be true?_ > > Your reply: _“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.”_ > > So you’ve already _ **mentioned** _ the answer without naming it; my question is merely: _ **what** _ data wouldn’t fit the estimated projections? And I assume you are forgetting I said that we had to resort to go to fantasy land to deal with that? What it is clear is this, you want a prediction that is based on fantasy to continue discussing your lousy 10:20:30 point gained from a misunderstanding of what the UN was really saying. ---
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/470 "2011-09-16T15:21:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. > > … > > So, unimportant. Oh, come on. Fox has nothing to do with this unless you are saying that the two facts are wrong: 1. Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, Resigns Over Global Warming 2. he did so because of a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.” It seems to me, that he isn’t denying global warming, and possibly every position you hold, only the claim that “the evidence is incontrovertible”. It seems to me that, as a man a of science, he thought the claim went too far. It seems to me that given the immense complexity of the issue that is the most respectful position for a man of science to take. Why must the level of confidence in the theory be 100%? Why not 99.99%. Hell, again, given the complexity of the problem, how can it be 100%? That stops feeling line science and starts feeling like dogma. No? ---
**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, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/471 "2011-09-16T15:31:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Gish Gallop as expected You really have no idea what a Gish Gallop is, please cite where just a single link to a published paper becomes a Gish Gallop. A link that shows that falsification is \*\*understood by skeptics and attempted \*\* already while others continue to think it is a good idea to discuss endlessly if a poster on a forum has better ideas. You are still clueless of what a strawman is, you are only doing projections on others, but at least it is good that you are becoming aware why a Gish Gallop is bad. (Really, what you demonstrated here is that your reptilian brain at least caught that what the Aji did was underhanded) ---
**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, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/472 "2011-09-16T15:37:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, come on. Fox has nothing to do with this unless you are saying that the two facts are wrong: > > 1. Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, Resigns Over Global Warming > 2. he did so because of a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.” > > It seems to me, that he isn’t denying global warming, and possibly every position you hold, only the claim that “the evidence is incontrovertible”. It seems to me that, as a man a of science, he thought the claim went too far. It seems to me that given the immense complexity of the issue that is the most respectful position for a man of science to take. Why must the level of confidence in the theory be 100%? Why not 99.99%. Hell, again, given the complexity of the problem, how can it be 100%? That stops feeling line science and starts feeling like dogma. No? Nope, he just has to publish a paper and see if peer review will not tell him how wrong he is, what I have seen is that there is plenty of evidence to realize that scientists that are on the minority are aware of that problem and so they have two choices, try to publish on friendly journals in the hope their selected peers miss the flaws, or take their case to the public and become irrelevant sooner, that is the same path taken by creationist scientists before. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/473 "2011-09-16T15:39:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What it is clear is this, you want a prediction that is based on fantasy to continue discussing your lousy 10:20:30 point No; as it happens, I’d be equally happy if you’d instead answer my question the other way around: spell out that if, for decades yet to come, temperatures (a) don’t rise, or possibly even (b) drop, then your predictions of “warming” _ **would** _ be proven true so long as the fingerprints remain. If you want to say that, then I’m content. If you’d prefer to _ **supply** _ a 10:20:30 point, then by all means do so. But if your answer is that your predicted “warming” will be proven true regardless of whether the globe in fact gets warmer or cooler in decades yet to come, then I have no wish to offer or discuss a 10:20:30 point; I’m merely satisfied. ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/474 "2011-09-16T15:59:34Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No; as it happens, I’d be equally happy if you’d instead answer my question the other way around: spell out that if, for decades yet to come, temperatures (a) don’t rise, or possibly even (b) drop, then your predictions of “warming” _ **would** _ be proven true so long as the fingerprints remain. > > If you want to say that, then I’m content. > > If you’d prefer to _ **supply** _ a 10:20:30 point, then by all means do so. But if your answer is that your predicted “warming” will be proven true regardless of whether the globe in fact gets warmer or cooler in decades yet to come, then I have no wish to offer or discuss a 10:20:30 point; I’m merely satisfied. Well, going to fantasy land I have to say that even there nothing is satisfying you, so the point that you are just JAQing is still here. Already the point was made in fantasy land, if we get another ice age before the one that was expected in about 12,000 years then this is all falsified. But why wait? One has to just falsify the greenhouse effect, that is one of the main lines of evidence, specifically the one area that deals with how much heat CO2 is trapping and not allowing it to leave the earth and we will be as happy as a clam… Well, scratch that, clams will still have to deal with all that acidification, but before you go for your knee jerk, this acidification issue does not depend on AGW. ---
**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, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/475 "2011-09-16T16:07:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, going to fantasy land I have to say that even there nothing is satisfying you, so the point that you are just JAQing is still here. > > Already the point was made in fantasy land, if we get another ice age before the one that was expected in about 12,000 years then this is all falsified. We’ve established that “another ice age” will falsify it. But as we’ve also established, that’s not the minimum; some smaller amount of cooling, or perhaps just a long enough stretch of not warming – or perhaps even a sufficiently _ **small** _ amount of warming? – would falsify it, right? I’m asking you to name the minimum for falsification. > [@](#): > > But why wait? One has to just falsify the greenhouse effect, that is one of the main lines of evidence, specifically the one area that deals with how much heat CO2 is trapping and not allowing it to leave the earth and we will be as happy as a clam… How much heat do you predict will be trapped, such that we’ll know you’re wrong if less heat winds up being trapped? ---
**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, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/476 "2011-09-16T16:08:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, he just has to publish a paper and see if peer review will not tell him how wrong he is, what I have seen is that there is plenty of evidence to realize that scientists that are on the minority are aware of that problem and so they have two choices, try to publish on friendly journals in the hope their selected peers miss the flaws, or take their case to the public and become irrelevant sooner, that is the same path taken by creationist scientists before. Wait. He’s not putting forth a theory. He’s just saying that the current theory (which I think he agrees with) doesn’t rise to the level of being 100% certain, that it reaches the level of incontrovertibility. Your trying to shift the burden of proof. If others want to insist that the theory is 100% airtight. it falls to them to provide a commensurate level of evidence. Which, given the complexity of what we’re talking about and the data available, seems an impossibility. I don’t think that puts the theory in a bad light, just a realistic one. By insisting that not only is the theory true, but 100% incontrovertible requires a leap of faith that doesn’t mesh with science. ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/477 "2011-09-16T16:49:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > We’ve established that “another ice age” will falsify it. But as we’ve also established, that’s not the minimum; some smaller amount of cooling, or perhaps just a long enough stretch of not warming – or perhaps even a sufficiently _ **small** _ amount of warming? – would falsify it, right? > > I’m asking you to name the minimum for falsification. Nope, for fantasy land that is good enough, what it is clear is that we have established that this can be falsified, serious researchers already know how and for practical purposes your point about falsification here is a moot one. Deal with the science now, not a bloke on an internet forum. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How much heat do you predict will be trapped, such that we’ll know you’re wrong if less heat winds up being trapped? Ah, good to see that there are indeed wiggle rooms on this, however we are on fantasy land, as most of the predictions of what would happen on a doubling of CO2 depend on this also, it is clear that on fantasy land we just need to show that the levels they find are lower than what they have been reporting for decades, after all it would be a very important feature to get wrong. Any lower levels will do (as this is one important factor used to predict what would happen on a doubling of CO2) as we are fantasizing. Of course, going to the real wold, we still have to look at the odds, I agree with this comment in skeptical science: > **[The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism](https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic-contradictions.html)** > > A major challenge in conversing with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics is that they constantly seem to move the goalposts and change their arguments.  As a consequence, they also frequently contradict themselves.  One day they'll argue the... > [@](#): > > In order for man-made global warming to be falsified, a physics-based alternative would have to exist (and survive scientific scrutiny) that explains the multiple lines of converging evidence we see that also explains why the physics of greenhouse gases works in every instance except for those GHG’s produced through the activity of man. > > Decades later, no such theory is forthcoming. That is what Feynman was referring to when mentioning that you need to replace the theory you are having a beef with something else, when you are not doing this, you are just wasting your time. And that article needs to be read just to see how deniers are actually contradicting each others, even here, and they do not notice. ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/478 "2011-09-16T17:06:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > We’ve established that “another ice age” will falsify it. But as we’ve also established, that’s not the minimum; some smaller amount of cooling, or perhaps just a long enough stretch of not warming – or perhaps even a sufficiently small amount of warming? – would falsify it, right? > > > > I’m asking you to name the minimum for falsification. > > Nope, for fantasy land that is good enough, what it is clear is that we have established that this can be falsified Hey, that’s fine by me. From now on, whenever you pop up in a thread to mention that “global warming” is on the way, I’ll do my best to see that someone spells out just what you’re claiming: that, when you predict “warming”, you mean we may well be in for decades of no warming, and possibly even cooling that stops just short of an ice age; it’s all consistent with your prediction. If that’s what you’re predicting, then I’m content. > [@](#): > > serious researchers already know how and for practical purposes your point about falsification here is a moot one. Deal with the science now, not a bloke on an internet forum. If I ever hear any of them refuse to name falsification criteria, I’ll treat 'em the way I’d been treating you. If I ever hear any of 'em claim that their predictions of “warming” mean they merely don’t believe the globe will soon cool down into another ice age, then I’ll be as satisfied with their answer as I now am with yours. ---
**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, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/479 "2011-09-16T17:07:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wait. He’s not putting forth a theory. He’s just saying that the current theory (which I think he agrees with) doesn’t rise to the level of being 100% certain, that it reaches the level of incontrovertibility. Your trying to shift the burden of proof. If others want to insist that the theory is 100% airtight. it falls to them to provide a commensurate level of evidence. Which, given the complexity of what we’re talking about and the data available, seems an impossibility. I don’t think that puts the theory in a bad light, just a realistic one. By insisting that not only is the theory true, but 100% incontrovertible requires a leap of faith that doesn’t mesh with science. Nope, you are just saying that without looking at what they are declaring incontrovertible, there is a valid reason why the vast majority of physicists agree with the statement. > **[American Physical Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society)** > > The American Physical Society (APS) is a not-for-profit membership organization of professionals in physics and related disciplines, comprising nearly fifty divisions, sections, and other units. Its mission is the advancement and diffusion of knowledge of physics. It publishes more than a dozen scientific journals, including the prestigious Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than twenty science meetings each year. It is a member society of the American Institute of... In 2007, APS adopted an official statement on global warming:[8] > [@](#): > > ``` > Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. > > The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. > > ``` You have to take into account the context, they are approaching this from a physics angle, unless you can show that all those confirmations of the levels of heat that CO2 is trapping and not allowing to leave the earth’s atmosphere are false, and the increase on the levels of the human CO2 made one are not increasing, then the evidence \*\*is \*\*incontrovertible, and this also because instrumental and natural physical thermometers are telling us that. ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/480 "2011-09-16T17:11:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Hey, that’s fine by me. From now on, whenever you pop up in a thread to mention that “global warming” is on the way, I’ll do my best to see that someone spells out just what you’re claiming: that, when you predict “warming”, you mean we may well be in for decades of no warming, and possibly even cooling that stops just short of an ice age; it’s all consistent with your prediction. > > If that’s what you’re predicting, then I’m content. That is fine, now go and sin no more 🙂 by not coming into discussions with reheated myths. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=25)