# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/41 "2011-09-05T21:50:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, if I’m not a Republican and I don’t watch Fox, I can’t be a sceptic? A person can be susceptible to hearing what you want to hear, and denying what you don’t want to, based on other “information” sources too. The mindset that is so opposed to the necessary policy implications of global climate change is not confined to the American fringe, unfortunately, since the pro-ignorance PR campaign has not been confined to America. > [@](#): > > The models have not been validated, The have been tweaked to fit the past. That’s how the process of science _works_. :dubious: You make your models and your hypotheses fit the observed reality. Did you not cover that in school? Now, as you acknowledge, the models do fit the data well, and are therefore as validated as validated can be. So what exactly is left for you to denigrate at this point? > [@](#): > > I love it when you have to fit your mental models to reality. That’s exactly how science works - you fit your models to reality. Was there a point you had in mind? > [@](#): > > Deniers have to be like that, because if you accepted the possibility of them being infromed it will break your model The evidence for them being “informed” is, well, what exactly? :dubious: Is the assertion “the deniers are actually informed” a falsifiable hypothesis, in your view? 'Cause here’s a hint - it’s been falsified pretty damn thoroughly. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/42 "2011-09-05T21:52:55Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Let’s say the earth is, indeed, undergoing global warming. What’s the proof that humans are the primary cause of it? Where’s all that CO2 coming from? Cow farts? ---
**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 5, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/43 "2011-09-05T21:54:56Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I have no dog in this fight. You should. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Additionally, accepting the reality of the science entails embracing policy approaches that are completely antithetical to the rugged-individualist, government-sucks, Randian attitudes they (are trained to) spout. Presenting facts and analysis is simply not enough to get the recipient to reject or even question an entire worldview. You might as well ask them to deny their religion. > > And it lets them continue to make inane cracks about Al Gore. What’s amazing to me is that I almost get the sense that they would rather see the planet fry and burn (if it eventually comes to that) rather than see the “other side” come up with a viable solution on “their” terms. That’s quite unbelievable when you ponder that kind of mindset for more than a moment; “Yeah our planet is dead but we sure showed those damned socialist scientists and politicians, didn’t we!” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/44 "2011-09-05T22:02:27Z")
A worrisome number of them expect to be Raptured before then, anyway. It isn’t new, either - here’s James Watt, Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior: “I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/45 "2011-09-05T22:08:25Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I have no dog in this fight. > > > [@John DiFool](#): > > > > You should. As long as you choose to live on this planet, you do. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/46 "2011-09-05T22:38:36Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Thank you for the OP. > > I’ve been meaning to express some form of support or appreciation for GIGO’s efforts, whether in a thread or a PM, but laziness has prevailed—for that I am sorry. > > A large amount of my work is in the field. I have a background in Earth science from Columbia University (technically only a minor; I was one class short of a major but had already completed two others and ran out of funding to stay for the extra time). Most of my work, though, is in the policy realm and largely focused on the developing world. As such, for many years now my direct connection with the IPCC and other hard-science research and advocacy is relatively small. I could not hope to counter the denialist claims with the same deftness, clarity, and thoroughness as GIGO. > > Perhaps most of all, I lack the patience. Most of my efforts are addressed at policy makers and those implementing various programmes. However, I recognize that grassroots-level advocacy and holding back the tide of for-profit deniers and politically motivated caterwaulers is essential. I am not referring to the day-to-day grind of responding to basic criticisms and critiques geared towards finding actual flaws in theories and models, but the vapid nipping at the heels of those who intentionally spread lies—that many here seem to have fallen for such tactics and are now mimicking such antics highlights the need for someone with the background, patience, and persistence to bring rationality and coherence to bare, lest others without time or resources fall victim to the same basic lack of understanding and fundamental logic fails that draw in new denialists, truthers, birthers, and intelligent designers. > > Thank you, GIGO. As you wish, **Rhythmdvl**. 🙂 That made my year 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/47 "2011-09-05T23:06:17Z")
There’s an idea! Rather than hash out the same shit, lets turn this into an Attaboy! party for **GIGO**! Attaboy, **GIGO**! Upvote! Plus one! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/48 "2011-09-05T23:17:21Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > **OWP** et al: You’re being pitted for, among other things, a politically-based adherence to a scientifically fruitless set of talking points—under the same thin veil Glenn Beck uses when “just asking questions” or Ben Stein uses in Expelled. It’s disingenuous at best; intentionally ignorant at worst. (I may have the order of those backwards.) I’d use the same “talking points” if _ **anyone** _ started making predictions – about _ **anything** _ – while refusing to give falsification criteria. I’d do the same thing if GIGO predicted cooling for decades to come, or if he predicted no significant change in temperature over that span of years likewise. I’d do it if I he predicted a lot of rain or very little rain for next year, asking just what he meant by either and what amount would falsify the claim. I’d do it if he predicted a yet-to-be-released movie would do well or poorly. I’d do it if he predicted he’d be rich or poor by the end of the decade. I’d do it because I want to know what’s being predicted and what’s not. You think it’s politically-based and disingenuous, but it’s the same set of questions I ask whenever anyone makes a prediction. > [@](#): > > To play your game, consider the following statements. Which of them fail on ‘falsification’ grounds, such that the general conclusion _“if we do not curb greenhouse gas emissions over the next fifty years, the climate system (and related localized weather patterns) will show observable changes”_ is wrong? My game is the opposite of that. My game is asking: _what observable changes are predicted, but won’t occur if you’re wrong?_ My game is, I suppose, asking which of your statements you’d jettison – or what additional statement you’d add in – if the changes you anticipate don’t materialize. [QUOTE=Lobohan] “What? Tens of thousands of professional PhD level scientists agree on something, representing over 95% of the world’s experts on the subject? Well, just let me take a look at the data and find out where they fucked up, hyuck, hyuck.” All because they simply will not accept a world where man can alter the atmosphere, because it either challenges their religious beliefs (God wouldn’t let that happen) or they’re just too dim to visualize how big man’s footprint is on this planet. [/QUOTE] Regardless of whether I’m minimally competent to “take a look at the data”, I can sure tell when someone who makes predictions refuses to make 'em falsifiable. GIGO, for whatever reason, is steadfastly limiting himself to discussing what data wouldn’t suffice to overturn the conclusions; he doesn’t go on to spell out what data would suffice. It’s not that I can’t accept a world where man can alter the atmosphere, or that I can’t visualize our footprint; it’s that people who make predictions but shy away from falsifiable ones are being too vague to be meaningful. How can I know if he’s right, if he won’t spell out what it’d mean to be wrong? [QUOTE=GIGObuster] > [@](#): > > I’m not avoiding it; I keep asking you for replacement criterion precisely because you’re now dissatisfied with the 15-20 year answer. Will you drop your stupid point that is not warming since 1998? [/QUOTE] That point was in answer to your original criterion – which you now want to drop, and with good reason; the point is stupid in exact proportion to how stupid the original criterion was. As soon as you swap in data-based criteria you think better reflect the complexity of the situation, I’ll tell you whether I believe the “not warming since 1998” point is relevant to your new falsification framework; if it’s no longer relevant, I’ll of course drop it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/49 "2011-09-05T23:28:23Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That point was in answer to your original criterion – which you now want to drop, and with good reason; the point is stupid in exact proportion to how stupid the original criterion was. As soon as you swap in data-based criteria you think better reflect the complexity of the situation, I’ll tell you whether I believe the “not warming since 1998” point is relevant to your new falsification framework; if it’s no longer relevant, I’ll of course drop it. In English please 🙂 What I get from that is that no, you will not drop that stupid point. But that is not my problem. Be my guest if you want to continue to sound like an idiot. ---
**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 6, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/50 "2011-09-06T00:00:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > In English please 🙂 In English: I’ll replace that point with a different one if you replace your earlier criterion with one that calls for a different point. > [@](#): > > What I get from that is that no, you will not drop that stupid point. But that is not my problem. Be my guest if you want to continue to sound like an idiot. I don’t want to say _“Of course I drop that point”_ only to have you name a new criterion that the same point would address. If you tell me your new criterion, I’ll tell you whether I think the lack of warming since '98 is relevant to it. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/51 "2011-09-06T00:24:39Z")
For anyone moronic enough to swallow the “what about 1998” bullshit, just read [this site.](http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998) > [@](#): > > At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) > > According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. ---
**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 6, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/52 "2011-09-06T00:34:38Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > For anyone moronic enough to swallow the “what about 1998” bullshit, just read [this site.](http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998) Oh, Christ, another GIGO-in-training. Don’t just tell me to stop using '98 as a starting point unless you’re telling me what to swap in _ **instead.** _ I like using '98 as a starting point because it fits GIGO’s original falsification criterion, and until he supplies a replacement falsification criterion I’ve got nothing else to go on; I’ll stop using it as soon as he moves his goalpost to exclude starting from '98. You say it’s not good enough to note it hasn’t gotten any warmer since '98? Tell me what _ **is** _ good enough by supplying a better falsification criterion. ---
**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 6, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/53 "2011-09-06T00:35:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As long as you choose to live on this planet, you do. Yes-thank you. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/54 "2011-09-06T00:37:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Oh, Christ, another GIGO-in-training. > > Don’t just tell me to stop using '98 as a starting point unless you’re telling me what to swap in _ **instead.** _ I like using '98 as a starting point because it fits GIGO’s original falsification criterion, and until he supplies a replacement falsification criterion I’ve got nothing else to go on; I’ll stop using it as soon as he moves his goalpost to exclude starting from '98. > > You say it’s not good enough to note it hasn’t gotten any warmer since '98? Tell me what _ **is** _ good enough by supplying a better falsification criterion. Take anything you want- from the same site: > [@](#): > > As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years – that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998. > You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis – the start of the late 20th century warming, and as such a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6 degrees C warming. > You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis – when the recent warming started in their record. It shows around .5 degrees C warming of the smoothed trend line. > You could choose 1880 in the NASA record – it shows .8 degrees C warming. > You could choose 1855 in the CRU record – it shows .8 degrees C warming. As with the trend above, we can not say it is over without many decades more data indicating cooling. > You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis – that is its entire length. It puts today about 1 degree C above the first three centuries of that record. In that kind of analysis, today’s record will be hidden from view for many decades. ---
**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 6, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/55 "2011-09-06T00:43:28Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Take anything you want- from the same site: > > > [@](#): > > > > As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years – that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998. Says there that it would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998. So if, a couple of decades after '98, we’ve only ever gotten average global temperatures that are the same or lower – shucks, that’s GIGO’s original 20-year criterion, the one he’s already backed away from! But if you’re cool with it, I can be cool with it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/56 "2011-09-06T00:47:06Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > In English: I’ll replace that point with a different one if you replace your earlier criterion with one that calls for a different point. Admit it, you are really The Obtuse Waldo Pepper. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t want to say _“Of course I drop that point”_ only to have you name a new criterion that the same point would address. If you tell me your new criterion, I’ll tell you whether I think the lack of warming since '98 is relevant to it. The point is that you have to show at least the smarts to be able to not to depend on an stupid point to ask a question. The worst thing is that many already know that it is essential for your obfuscating point that the past decades be ignored and also to ignore the warming that is already here thanks to the CO2 forcing. When you continuing to believe that there was no warming since 98 it demonstrates that you will continue to ignore the evidence already presented. What you have here is an hypothesis that you think it can not be falsified… And you are basing your questions on it. We already showed you that it can be falsified, the UN was overwhelmingly reporting about the warming trend. it would had been better that you would had pointed at the denier source that gave the idea that the UN was reporting that there was no warming, but unfortunately you had to pretend it was your own idea, in desperation you had to point at a UN report and offered a quote without context that was not really saying that there was no warming. So you still continue spewing nonsense. You are really an idiot if you think we can ignore that you are demanding falsification from others when you are 100% guilty of ignoring the evidence on why you should drop your leading 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 6, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/57 "2011-09-06T00:49:19Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Says there that it would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998. So if, a couple of decades after '98, we’ve only ever gotten average global temperatures that are the same or lower – shucks, that’s GIGO’s original 20-year criterion, the one he’s already backed away from! But if you’re cool with it, I can be cool with it. And I already said that if it makes you happy you can have it. Do not be obtuse. ---
**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 6, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/58 "2011-09-06T00:56:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point is that you have to show at least the smarts to be able to not to depend on an stupid point to ask a question. I ask the question with no underlying point. The question is mercifully free of context. The question is, _what hypothetical evidence could falsify your prediction?_ That’s the same question I’d ask if you predicted global cooling. It’s the same question I’d ask if you predicted “a lot of rain” or “very little rain”. It’s the same question I’d ask if you predicted that the US would do better than China at the next Olympics. It’s the same question, word-for-word, that I’d ask if you made pretty much any prediction about anything: what, exactly are you predicting? How, exactly, will we know if you’re wrong? > [@](#): > > When you continuing to believe that there was no warming since 98 it demonstrates that you will continue to ignore the evidence already presented. You have here is an hypothesis that you think it can not be falsified… And you are basing your questions on it. What the heck are you talking about? It’s not that I “think it can not be falsified”, it’s that you’ve already retracted your earlier prediction – which I agree could be falsified – and haven’t yet provided a replacement prediction in kind. > [@](#): > > We already showed you that it can be falsified, the UN was overwhelmingly reporting about the warming trend. As per your original criterion, that’s irrelevant. As per the replacement criterion, I don’t yet know whether it’s relevant; I haven’t heard it. > [@](#): > > You are really an idiot if you think we can ignore that you are demanding falsification from others when you are 100% guilty of ignoring the evidence on why you should drop your leading question. It’s not a leading question. It depends on no outside evidence. The question is, simply and only: _what hypothetical evidence could falsify your prediction?_ ---
**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 6, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/59 "2011-09-06T00:58:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And I already said that if it makes you happy you can have it. Do not be obtuse. You recently informed me that it was too simple and ignores other factors. You stated, in page one of this thread, that _“I just informed recently that it was too simple and ignores other factors”_. I don’t give a tin shit that you go on to say I can have it if it makes me happy; if you feel it’s too simple and ignores other factors, then name a claim that _ **isn’t** _ too simple and _ **doesn’t** _ ignore other factors. ---
**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 6, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/60 "2011-09-06T01:01:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It’s not a leading question. It depends on no outside evidence. The question is, simply and only: _what hypothetical evidence could falsify your prediction?_ Basically one that does not depend on the stupid “it has not warmed since 1998”, it has to include at least a look at decadal variation (Whoa! look! past decades before 1998, uncanny!) and a reference to the moving average. So far it is clear that you have problems understanding the basics of what researchers and statisticians are looking for. And this still leaves out the warming from CO2 that has been observed so far. Of course we will see if you are capable of seeing that to acknowledge this you have to drop your stupid point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=4)