# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 28
**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 17, 2011, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/541 "2011-09-17T22:54:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And those whining questions are not important to the lesson at hand, you have demonstrated a gross ineptitude on recognizing good sites from the bad, if you insist they are the greatest thing after seeing the evidence to the contrary then you are lying in my book if still claim they show what you are right. What is important that even higher ups decided to put even a supporter of yours in a tread titled in part “hypocritical deniers” It was not my idea and if you want to ignore what even thoughtful conservatives are saying, then I have not much problems, as you are getting irrelevant and infamous. You didn’t read post 510, did you? Still no answer to a simple question. ---
**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 17, 2011, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/542 "2011-09-17T23:24:06Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You didn’t read post 510, did you? > Still no answer to a simple question. Boy you are dense, my opinion is to defer to the best current science, so I replied by not reinventing the wheel in the following post, that is what I do think about the issue, and I would think anyone that does not defer to the experts is just willing to let ideology run over evidence. My opinion now is that you are not willing to deal with the science and the evidence and continue to just assume that just because you did not get a different opinion from a bloke on the internet you should act like if then it is ok to continue to depend on anti-science sources that are yanking your chain. ---
**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 17, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/543 "2011-09-17T23:28:59Z")
I’m telling you, he ain’t gonna do it. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > In case you forgot the question is: _What is in your opinion the total climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration from pre-industrial-age levels?_ He’s never going to answer of course. Even the most strident alarmists will hedge their bets when it comes to the meat of the matter. Like the fucknuts at skepticalscience, who I will now lay into. (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. **They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2**. > > When I say doubled CO2, what is meant specifically is a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. A variety of forcings will have actually influenced climate over the periods examined, not just CO2. > So the combined evidence indicates that the net feedback to radiative forcing is significantly positive. > > Knutti concludes there is no credible line of evidence that yields very high or very low climate sensitivity as a best estimate. However, there is still **some uncertainty about the exact value of climate sensitivity** with a likely range (more than 66% probability) of 2 to 4.5°C. > > There is more certainty regarding the lower bound of climate sensitivity. The probability of lower climate sensitivity drops off sharply while it’s harder to rule out larger climate sensitivities. This is the [inevitable consequence of a climate system with positive feedback](http://www.skepticalscience.com/model-uncertainty-global-warming-projections.html). Constraints from observed recent climate change indicate that climate sensitivity is very likely (more than 90% probability) to be larger than 1.5 °C. > > Where the rubber hits the road in all this analysis is how **future temperature rise will affect humanity**. Figure 2 shows temperature rise for a given CO2 level. The dark grey area indicates the climate sensitivity likely range of 2 to 4.5°C. > **[Working out climate sensitivity](https://skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity.html)** > > In the last post on past climate change, we looked at just two determinations of climate sensitivity. I started with Hansen 1993 as it used a relatively simple methodology in using temperature change and radiative forcing to calculate climate... There you have it, in a slightly large nutshell. But wait, there is more. > [@](#): > > The tight constraint on the lower limit of climate sensitivity indicates **we’re looking down the barrel** of significant warming in future decades. > **[Working out climate sensitivity](https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=77)** (note figure two, which predicts “The key impacts associated with 2°C warming can be seen at the top of Figure 2”) Both the alarmists language, as well as the certainty of the near catastrophic “impacts” of warming, none of seems scientific at all. There is none of the usual language used when describing speculative musings on “what might happen”. This is the sort of thing a skeptic might object to, especially when it is clearly tied ti some sort of agenda, which has little to do with changing mankinds ways, and seems all about attacking one particular issue. Fossil fuels. Be that as it may be (I also want mankind to stop burning fossil fuels btw), just because I want to change the world, I am not going to sacrifice logic and reason in the process. Nor will I read language like “ **we’re looking down the barrel** ” and consider that scientific. It’s not. It’s alarmists, it’s fanatical, and it’s an example of the bullshit that is so prevalent, those who drank the warm Kool Aid can’t see it. ---
**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 18, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/544 "2011-09-18T00:05:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Boy you are dense, my opinion is to defer to the best current science, so I replied by not reinventing the wheel in the following post, that is what I do think about the issue, and I would think anyone that does not defer to the experts is just willing to let ideology run over evidence. > > My opinion now is that you are not willing to deal with the science and the evidence and continue to just assume that just because you did not get a different opinion from a bloke on the internet you should act like if then it is ok to continue to depend on anti-science sources that are yanking your chain. So…it is still a no. No answer to a simple question Were my first two questions also something to “defer to the best current science”? Does it mean you have no personal opinion on the subject? If so, what is the point of somebody trying to debate with you rahter than simply reading through realclimate? That’s the whole point of a message board, interaction. AGW links are found by the billion on the internet. Your classic “you’re a denier who won’t accpet the science” is interesting, becuase you still refuse to answer the first, basic question of AGW, which is climate sensitivity. We’re not talking abour Oxygen-18 isotopes in andean ice-core or dendrochornology in the late middle-ages. ---
**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 18, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/545 "2011-09-18T00:56:26Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If so, what is the point of somebody trying to debate with you rather than simply reading through realclimate? That’s the whole point of a message board, interaction. Oh, good point. I know just what you mean by that. Faced with a flood of nonsense, insults and sidetracks, it is frustrating when the discussion isn’t a discussion, but a fuck pile of idiots all trying to desperately score points with their fuck buddies. All the while insisting they are the bastions of reason and 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 18, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/546 "2011-09-18T01:14:15Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So…it is still a no. No answer to a simple question. The answer was there already, you do nt like it as it is clear that you have no will whatsoever to check what the science is all about. \*\*There is no better opinion than an informed one. \*\* > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Your classic “you’re a denier who won’t accpet the science” is interesting, becuase you still refuse to answer the first, basic question of AGW, which is climate sensitivity. We’re not talking abour Oxygen-18 isotopes in andean ice-core or dendrochornology in the late middle-ages. And clearly now you are resorting to willful dense ignorance to make your point. the latest evidence regarding the climate sensibility was already linked to, regardless that my opinion agrees with the scientists, the evidence says that you are just willing to dig deeper to show yourself as a dofus. Fine with me. 🙂 ---
**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 18, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/547 "2011-09-18T01:15:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Oh, good point. I know just what you mean by that. Faced with a flood of nonsense, insults and sidetracks, it is frustrating when the discussion isn’t a discussion, but a fuck pile of idiots all trying to desperately score points with their fuck buddies. > > All the while insisting they are the bastions of reason and science. Those “fuck buddies” are real scientists (contributors to RealClimate), but it is ok that he is willfully unaware of how an idiot FX looks like. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/548 "2011-09-18T01:21:00Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If so, what is the point of somebody trying to debate with you rahter than simply reading through realclimate? GIGOBuster could probably be replaced by a simple computer program which parses posts for key words; does a search on Realclimate; and posts a few random excerpts from the search results along with a nasty accusation or two. ---
**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 18, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/549 "2011-09-18T01:25:37Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > GIGOBuster could probably be replaced by a simple computer program which parses posts for key words; does a search on Realclimate; and posts a few random excerpts from the search results along with a nasty accusation or two. brazil here is not is not the first one to make that lousy point, last one was a “Magnetic sun created all features of the earth!” woo woo proponent, same reasoning and unless NASA, the UN, Skeptical Science, and others are the same, this is yet another idiocy from the B man and FX. ---
**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 18, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/550 "2011-09-18T02:06:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > GIGOBuster could probably be replaced by a simple computer program which parses posts for key words; does a search on Realclimate; and posts a few random excerpts from the search results along with a nasty accusation or two. There is actually an app that does that. Offered by skepticalscience ---
**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 18, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/551 "2011-09-18T02:09:39Z")
> **[RealClimate: Throw your iPhone into the climate debate](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/throw-your-iphone-into-the-climate-debate/)** > > RealClimate: Who says that the climate debate is not evolving? According to the daily newspaper the Guardian, a new application ('app') has been written for iPhones that provides a list of climate dissidents' arguments, and counter arguments based on... Meanwhile, back in the real world… the fuckholes at warmer central still have their asshole guide to climate online [http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php](http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php) I followed the link they use as “evidence” of how the sun hasn’t changed. Even the certainty shows a clear change in total energy per square meter. But the error range shows up to 5 watts per square meter difference. Yet they boldly claim the sun has nothing to do with climate. Not a minor role. Nothing. That sort of idiocy can’t be on purpose. There is something else going on. ---
**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 18, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/552 "2011-09-18T02:17:13Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [RealClimate: Throw your iPhone into the climate debate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/throw-your-iphone-into-the-climate-debate/) > > Meanwhile, back in the real world… the fuckholes at warmer central still have their asshole guide to climate online > [http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php](http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php) > > I followed the link they use as “evidence” of how the sun hasn’t changed. Even the certainty shows a clear change in total energy per square meter. But the error range shows up to 5 watts per square meter difference. > > Yet they boldly claim the sun has nothing to do with climate. Not a minor role. Nothing. That sort of idiocy can’t be on purpose. There is something else going on. Ah yes, when all fails resort to the conspiracy card. I knew the deniers would. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/553 "2011-09-18T03:57:25Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [ > Yet they boldly claim the sun has nothing to do with climate. Not a minor role. Nothing. That sort of idiocy can’t be on purpose. There is something else going on. Yes, you’ve got it… something is going on. Something… suspicious. Something Eerie. Just keep your tinfoil helmet on and everything will be OK. ---
**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 21, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/554 "2011-09-21T00:10:01Z")
Stupid is not the same as conspiracy. But you’re dumb so of course you can’t know that. Carry on. ---
**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 21, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/555 "2011-09-21T00:42:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Stupid is not the same as conspiracy. But you’re dumb so of course you can’t know that. Carry on. Ok, it is a stupid conspiracy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=27)