# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/101 "2011-09-06T23:11:44Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I don’t know what PR campaigns I may have been subject to. If you did know, then, they wouldn’t have worked on you, right? > [@](#): > > The models have been made to fit reality. The model should not be tweaked into submission. ANY model can be made to fit ANY reality. No, not \*any \*model. Be serious. The ones that work, _work_ - just as you say. So on what basis do you deny what they tell you? > [@](#): > > No, it isn’t and no, it hasn’t. A _clear_ enough argument there, albeit somewhat lacking in the convincing department. Perhaps you could do a bit better than that? ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/102 "2011-09-06T23:53:57Z")
The BadAstronomy guy [has an article](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/) this week, which notes how certain “news” organizations craft misleading headlines. In this case the Financial Post titled an article “New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans”, when the study actually found the exact opposite. ---
**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 7, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/103 "2011-09-07T00:02:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you did know, then, they wouldn’t have worked on you, right? I knew you were gonna say that. There are no campaign slike that where I live, on the contrary, most is eco-babbling about how the end being nigh. > [@](#): > > No, not \*any \*model. Be serious. The ones that work, _work_ - just as you say. So on what basis do you deny what they tell you? My evidence is very simple. If CO2 is the main driver in GW and we assign very different climate sensitivities we cannot reach the same results; if then aerosols behave in such a way that they compensate the differences, without any evidence that they should, it makes you wonder. A _clear_ enough argument there, albeit somewhat lacking in the convincing department. Perhaps you could do a bit better than that? [/QUOTE] Yes, I could. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/104 "2011-09-07T00:15:53Z")
So, we have to beg? Or what? ---
**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 7, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/105 "2011-09-07T00:25:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, we have to beg? Or what? No, begging please. Let’s start easy. One direct question and I give a direct answer. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/106 "2011-09-07T00:54:53Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > ..My evidence is very simple. > If CO2 is the main driver in GW and we assign very different climate sensitivities we cannot reach the same results; if then aerosols behave in such a way that they compensate the differences, without any evidence that they should, it makes you wonder… First thing I wonder is what the hell that desperately complicated sentence means. I could think maybe you’re saying that the degradation of the ozone layer by aerosol sprays compensate for the heat-trapping properties of CO two. But then I would have to think you’re barking mad. TL:DR Huh? Wha? ---
**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 7, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/107 "2011-09-07T02:11:43Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > What’s the point? > Your only answer to all cites, quotes, data, fact, questions are two: > “It comes from a known denier (website)” > “No, it isn’t” Your desperation to not dealing with evidence shows. I enjoy your whining. 🙂 Besides showing that skeptical scientists use computer models (what? you really thought skeptical climatologists would stop using them just because clueless guys tell them that they are not useful?) what I got from that bit of news was that Spencer is going off the deep end by clearly assuming that it was standard procedure that one could tweak the models to get what you wanted. It does not work that way. [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/) > [@](#): > > As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”: > > ``` > “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. > > ``` > [@](#): > > It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing — committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. What one has to realize here (and looking at the resignation of the editor of the journal that accepted that flawed paper) is that it would take some effort but skeptics that know that stuff should be able to find evidence that a model was used improperly. If the critics of the researchers using models were correct on how most researchers use their models, then we should had seen already dozens of papers and researchers shamed like in the case of Spencer. But we don’t. Instead what I see is that the ones launching the accusations are the ones that are discredited because their criticism was ideologically driven on top of flawed. > **[The Wegman report sees red (noise)](https://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/)** > > By Deep Climate The recent focus on George Mason University’s investigation into plagiarism allegations concerning the Wegman “hockey stick” report and related scholarship has led… There was actually an “easter egg” in the quote and you demonstrated to all how deftly you are at avoiding reading cites. > [@](#): > > As for the second denier trick, well, they got Yahoo News to host a “news story” on the article — written by James Taylor. Not the brilliant singer song-writer who wrote, “I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain, I’ve seen sunny days that I thought would never end.” No, the uber-denier James Taylor whose Heartland Institute wants to bring to America’s heartland too much fire and too much rain — and heat waves that you thought would never end. Sorry, couldn’t resist. > > And so Yahoo enables this headline of denier bunk — “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism” — to spread through the web like so much kudzu. LiveScience noted in its debunking post: > > ``` > The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it “extremely important.” > > ``` So a couple of things there, The Heartland Institute was and continues to be involved on efforts to defend the Tobacco industry and there are one of the merchants of doubt. > **[Doubting the deniers](https://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/books/doubting-deniers)** > > Scientists have sometimes sought to hold back the cause of knowledge and progress, according to writer Naomi Oreskes. She talked to Chris Barton,... > [@](#): > > In her book, Oreskes writes that American think-tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Heartland Institute have played a significant role in spreading doubt. > > As well as receiving funding from the American Petroleum Institute and the family foundations of oil-service giant Koch Industries, the CEI has received just over $2 million from ExxonMobil since 1998, plus $370,000 since 1991 from the tobacco giant Philip Morris. Similarly, the Heartland Institute has received over $190,000 from Phillip Morris since 1993 and over $670,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006. Forbes has relied on people from that think tank and together with other deniers it is spreading misinformation, Forbes is indeed a capitalist fool nowadays and you used them also as your “reliable citations” ---
**Author:** ![keeganst94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a6a055/32.png) [@keeganst94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keeganst94)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/108 "2011-09-07T05:10:33Z")
What the hell are you doing GIGO? THIS IS A PITTING. You do not have to debate them. Just tell them to go fuck themselves if you want to. You have already proved sufficiently to the vast majority of posters here that you are correct. The ones that are left are just denialists: no matter what you say, they will never believe you! Great job on keeping your cool though. And on finding massive piles of cites. ---
**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 7, 2011, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/109 "2011-09-07T05:14:37Z")
> [@keeganst94](#): > > What the hell are you doing GIGO? THIS IS A PITTING. You do not have to debate them. Just tell them to go fuck themselves if you want to. You have already proved sufficiently to the vast majority of posters here that you are correct. The ones that are left are just denialists: no matter what you say, they will never believe you! > > Great job on keeping your cool though. And on finding massive piles of cites. Thanks for that. Oh don’t worry, it is a pleasure to point at their dumbness and at the same time have the freedom to tell them to be fruitful and multiply with themselves in my own way. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/110 "2011-09-07T05:45:55Z")
And that’s a real crowd pleaser, **GIGO** , but maybe next time, after you cram a copy of the _Journal of Clilmatological Science_ down the throat of the Masked Denier, you just pick up a folding chair… ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/111 "2011-09-07T06:55:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > To heck with that, let’s pit **GIGO**! Talk about obnoxious! I mean, many’s the time I’ve wanted to take part in such a debate, but **GIGO** hogs the whole conversation. Got all the facts, figures, citations, in a huge fecking pile of facts and info. All that is left for a moderately informed hippy like me is to come in and say “Yeah, what **GIGO** said!” > > And you’d think he’d get tired of it all, but no, he comes in every time! Patient, calm, relentless, he simply rolls in with his fork-lift piled up with charts, figures and analysis and dumps them on his opposition like crushing a bug with the encyclopedia. > > And he cannot be stopped! He is a citation delivery device, a huge, unstoppable machine of fact and logic! A **GIGO** naut! How is fair debate possible when he’s right, knows he’s right, and won’t shut up about it! How is fair debate even possible unless the stupid have an equal chance! Concur. BTW, where do I sign up to **GIGO** ’s fan club? ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/112 "2011-09-07T12:16:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, this “pipette” of which you speak? Is that like a pipe, only girly? “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” ---
**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 7, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/113 "2011-09-07T17:00:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > First thing I wonder is what the hell that desperately complicated sentence means. I could think maybe you’re saying that the degradation of the ozone layer by aerosol sprays compensate for the heat-trapping properties of CO two. But then I would have to think you’re barking mad. > > TL:DR Huh? Wha? OK, I’ll rephrase using invented examples: 1. Scenario 1: CO2 causes an increase of 6 degrees and aerosols will decrease it by 2. Final result is a 4-degree increaase. 2. Scenaro 2: CO2 causes an increase of 8 degrees and aerosols will decrease it by 4. Final result is a 4-degree increase. MY point is that the models give no reason why the aerosols (or their production) would behave differently or change their quantity to the exact point that the model replicates reality. As an aside, aerosols are very localised compared to the mostly even distribution of CO2, so a local effect would have to be massive so that the global average is affected. [invented and simplistic example] If high aersol concentrations are found in 10% of the earth surface, and they cause a 3 degree decrease in global temperature, they must casue a 30 degree decease in the local areas so that the average would get to 3 [/invented and simplistic example] I can, of course, be reading it all wrong. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Your desperation to not dealing with evidence shows. I enjoy your whining. 🙂 > > Besides showing that skeptical scientists use computer models (what? you really thought skeptical climatologists would stop using them just because clueless guys tell them that they are not useful?) what I got from that bit of news was that Spencer is going off the deep end by clearly assuming that it was standard procedure that one could tweak the models to get what you wanted. It does not work that way. > > [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/) > > What one has to realize here (and looking at the resignation of the editor of the journal that accepted that flawed paper) is that it would take some effort but skeptics that know that stuff should be able to find evidence that a model was used improperly. If the critics of the researchers using models were correct on how most researchers use their models, then we should had seen already dozens of papers and researchers shamed like in the case of Spencer. > > But we don’t. > > Instead what I see is that the ones launching the accusations are the ones that are discredited because their criticism was ideologically driven on top of flawed. > > [The Wegman report sees red (noise) | Deep Climate](http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/) > > There was actually an “easter egg” in the quote and you demonstrated to all how deftly you are at avoiding reading cites. > > So a couple of things there, The Heartland Institute was and continues to be involved on efforts to defend the Tobacco industry and there are one of the merchants of doubt. > > [Doubting the deniers | Otago Daily Times Online News](http://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/books/160346/doubting-deniers) > > Forbes has relied on people from that think tank and together with other deniers it is spreading misinformation, Forbes is indeed a capitalist fool nowadays and you used them also as your “reliable citations” Nice to see that you clutch to the whole “it’s a denier” and “it’s been debunked” thingylike your doing it for your life. You only, apparently, look at the url of my cite and maybe the author and then go the mum and dad at realclimate to find your answer. You never seem to address specific issues. Intead of, for instance, answering any of the points raised by the Forbes article (which can be the largest piece of crap in the universe) your answer is simply the _ad hominem_ “Forbes has relied on people from that think tank and together with other deniers it is spreading misinformation”, which may very well be true, but still you run away from giving real answers. Since you have shown not even a feigned interest in reading and debating my cite, I will do the same with yours, i.e. not give a fuck about them. Call it whining if it helps you sleep through the night and promiotes pleasurable evacuation of your bowels. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/114 "2011-09-07T17:04:25Z")
You are pretending to a parity that does not exist. He’s got buttloads of valid citation, simply calling them “his” cites and dismissing them because he dismisses “yours” doesn’t get it. Oh, and what **GIGO** said. ---
**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 7, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/115 "2011-09-07T17:31:16Z")
> [@keeganst94](#): > > What the hell are you doing GIGO? THIS IS A PITTING. You do not have to debate them. Just tell them to go fuck themselves if you want to. You have already proved sufficiently to the vast majority of posters here that you are correct. The ones that are left are just denialists: no matter what you say, they will never believe you! Indeed. The more naive part of me, which simply refuses to go away for some reason, wonders why people just double down on the rhetoric after they’ve been pitted-in fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single Pitting where the Pittee (heh) ever says, “Sorry guys, my bad, I was an ass/wrong, won’t ever happen again, and I apologize to those I may have offended.” To said naive self, that is quite astonishing. 500 quatloos to the person who can find such sincere honesty, repentance, and humility on the part of a Pittee (serious about that-well not the quatloo part). > [@Norse](#): > > Concur. > > BTW, where do I sign up to **GIGO** ’s fan club? You can always send him a friend request. 🆒 ---
**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 8, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/116 "2011-09-08T00:00:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You are pretending to a parity that does not exist. He’s got buttloads of valid citation, simply calling them “his” cites and dismissing them because he dismisses “yours” doesn’t get it. > > Oh, and what **GIGO** said. The Ají de Gallina is missing the Aji. 🙂 Yes, that is the case, you would think he had learned that dopers frown on links with no explanation or a quote from them, but the Gallina here just wants me to do his homework, as it turns out he also has not learned yet that I do look at the cites before dismissing them. The overall tenor of the cites is clear, that scientists are wrong and not using models properly, as pointed before then the McExperts should just denounce a few of the most likely researchers that are guilty of this and demonstrate with evidence how off the mark their models and conclusions are. But then another overall item can be noticed, they never got specific on what researcher, published paper or journal the mistakes are so they could shame the bad research. And then, after all their “efforts”, there is no mention of the McExperts going to publish their findings to see if their peers would agree. No, what they do is to just show their “results” on blogs and claim that they are doing science, that is precisely what pseudoscience does, avoid the glare of the reviewers and as the Spencer case showed, they have a very good reason why they do not confront the research itself. > **[RealClimate: Unforced variations 3](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/unforced-variations-3-2/)** > > RealClimate: Here's an open thread for various climate science related discussions, to prevent more off-topic clutter everywhere else. We have some good posts coming up, but if you want to discuss something you read in the media, saw in a press... Gavin Smith did took on Meyer’s antics before: > [@](#): > > [Response: Sorry, but this is simply an attempt to reframe the ‘center’ of the debate. The mid-range of climate sensitivity is around 3 deg C - it might be a little less, it might be a little more - but this is what you get if you actually look at how climate has changed in the past. It also happens to be the mid-point of what the climate models suggest - though you are welcome not to pay attention to that if you want. The idea that 1.2 deg C is the midpoint and only ‘alarmists’ think it is bigger is nonsense. A sensitivity that low makes it impossible to explain ice ages, hothouse climates, etc. So no, this is not the difference that defines ‘skeptics’. People who are in denial that there is plentiful evidence for net positive feedback are just the same as those who deny the evidence for rising GHGs, or the existence of the greenhouse effect, or the existence of internal variability, etc. etc. - gavin] ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/117 "2011-09-08T18:08:48Z")
So, Gigo is unwilling to accept the bald assertion that the reports of global temperature show that global warming stopped in 1998. That’s good science, since a single decade is a trivial data set for a global temperature trends, and temperature is only one aspect of the very complex interactions of atmosphere, sea, land and insolation in a planetary system. Good for him. However, he could just as easily simply rejected the absurd claim because it is innacurate. It is not the truth. It might be screaming knuckle dragging stupidity, but the amount of actual stupidity needed makes deliberate dishonesty a much more likely reason. > [@NASA](#): > > Feb. 8, 2005:Last year [2004] was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. > > Jan. 24, 2006: The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world. > > Feb. 8, 2007:Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. > > Jan. 16, 2008: Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century. > > Feb. 23, 2009: Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. The GISS analysis also showed that 2008 is the ninth warmest year since continuous instrumental records were started in 1880. > > Jan. 21, 2010: 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. > > January 12, 2011: Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) and additional reports linked there. Tris ---
**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 8, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/118 "2011-09-08T18:20:42Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) and additional reports linked there. > > Tris That’s what NASA said. [Here’s](http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_906_en.html) what the UN said, with statistics based on data sets maintained by NASA and HadCRU and the NCDC – namely, that there’s _“no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998 … The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.”_ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/119 "2011-09-08T18:29:21Z")
> [@](#): > > “The 2010 data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.” Your cite. Missed that part, did you? (Get some coffee, **GIGO** , I got this 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 8, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281/120 "2011-09-08T18:36:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Your cite. Missed that part, did you? No, I cited it in reply to Tris’ specific point – and the cited _ **facts** _ serve that purpose to my satisfaction. My primary concern is the falsifiability of claims; the cited facts interest me to that extent; unsurprisingly, the cited _ **conclusions** _ likewise interest me to the extent that they likewise involve falsifiable claims. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hereby-pit-the-gang-of-hypocritical-deniers-debating-gigobuster/595281.md?page=7)