I hereby pit the gang of hypocritical deniers "debating" GIGObuster

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

That is fine, now go and sin no more by not coming into discussions with reheated myths.

Hey, as long as you’re only predicting we’re not in for another ice age any time soon, we’re on the same side.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

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 - Wikipedia

In 2007, APS adopted an official statement on global warming:[8]

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.

I don’t think he’s saying that the evidence is incontrovertible. But that due to the level of it and the inherent complexity of the problem, that one cannot say that the conclusion is incontrovertible. They’re two different things. I think it safe to say that the level of confidence is very high, but to equate it with certainty is ridiculous.

[FXMastermind]

Indeed, indeed. To see some people freaking the fuck out over that simple fact is also ridiculous.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

I don’t think he’s saying that the evidence is incontrovertible. But that due to the level of it and the inherent complexity of the problem, that one cannot say that the conclusion is incontrovertible. They’re two different things. I think it safe to say that the level of confidence is very high, but to equate it with certainty is ridiculous.

It is not when they have confirmed it for 50 years or so. When you see what they refer as the conclusion, or what to do about it, they do report in the statement itself that more research is needed to see what are the levels of the response we have to make.

Again, what I have seen so far is that this, already on the minority, scientist has chosen to not do science to convince his peers about what he is saying.

[FXMastermind]

Gish Gallup on Gigo

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Gish Gallup on Gigo

Once again you are clueless, there was only one item I was referring to, the statement of the physicist group, to be a Gish Gallop you need to check the master:

Duane Gish

Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the “Gish Gallop,” describing it as “where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate”[7] and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[8]

Unless you can point at the torrent of cites on the last reply I made, you are just continuing to show others that you do not even know what you are criticizing others of.

Fine with me.

[FXMastermind]

I know arguing with idiots is a waste of time. But still, brushing off facts because you first heard it from FOX is pretty low, even from a Gish Galluping Gigo

According to The Wall Street Journal, Giaever has described man-made global warming as a "new religion,"[8] with references to a report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (minority), led by Jim Inhofe, in March 2009.[9] The report states that Giaever has said “I am a skeptic… Global warming has become a new religion.”[9][10]

In a featured story in Norway’s largest newspaper, Aftenposten, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, “It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years.”[11]

On 13 September 2011 Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”[12]

Ivar Giaever

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. – 13 times the number who authored the U.N.‘s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

WebCite query result

It’s not only like a religion, it already has sects forming.

Gigo wants to be a high priest.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

It is not when they have confirmed it for 50 years or so. When you see what they refer as the conclusion, or what to do about it, they do report in the statement itself that more research is needed to see what are the levels of the response we have to make.

Again, what I have seen so far is that this, already on the minority, scientist has chosen to not do science to convince his peers about what he is saying.

Again, you’re just shifting the burden of proof. There are mountains of data, right? He’s not arguing with the data (as far as I’ve read), he’s just saying that given the complexity of the issue and looking at all the data, it doesn’t rise to the extraordinary level of “certitude”.

With all this love of science you have (which I commend), you don’t do yourself any favors by not understanding that the burden of proof is with those claiming that the conclusions they draw are “incontrovertible”.

[FXMastermind]

Bingo.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

I know arguing with idiots is a waste of time. But still, brushing off facts because you first heard it from FOX is pretty low, even from a Gish Galluping Gigo

Ok, now you are lying. I do not do Gish Gallops.

And Jim Inhofe is seen as a tweet by conservatives that appreciate science.

And we already showed that Giaever was already on the record as an skeptic, an skeptic that is going to the public and not doing science, just like many creationist scientists fall to when they do not get what they want.

@FXMastermind

It’s not only like a religion, it already has sects forming.

Gigo wants to be a high priest.

Funny religion where even scientists from the industry do not want to officially make a position on this, the AAPG has decided just to punt claiming they have no expertise on this.

Scientific consensus on climate change

As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[90]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate

Well, of course the maximum scenarios are not as likely as the average and most expected projections. The point here is though that if it was a religion then there would not be a division so pronounced among scientists that do have the interests of their companies in mind. It is a very peculiar religion that convinces half of the scientists in the payroll of the oil companies. And we have not yet mentioned all the other scientific organizations in the link that do have official positions overwhelmingly saying that AGW is real.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Again, you’re just shifting the burden of proof. There are mountains of data, right? He’s not arguing with the data (as far as I’ve read), he’s just saying that given the complexity of the issue and looking at all the data, it doesn’t rise to the extraordinary level of “certitude”.

With all this love of science you have (which I commend), you don’t do yourself any favors by not understanding that the burden of proof is with those claiming that the conclusions they draw are “incontrovertible”.

And I already linked to the evidence, so I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

[FXMastermind]

That is pretty obvious.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

And I already linked to the evidence, so I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Enough with the friggin links already. I asked you a question that you need no—zero—links to answer. I’m asking you what YOU think. The questions I asked couldn’t be more basic. You know what “science” is, right? You know what “burden of proof” is, right? If not, here.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Enough with the friggin links already. I asked you a question that you need no—zero—links to answer. I’m asking you what YOU think. The questions I asked couldn’t be more basic. You know what “science” is, right? You know what “burden of proof” is, right? If not, here.

And in reality it is you who wants to do that, really, there is nothing scientific on what Ivar is doing.

And that is why then we are entering the realm of politics.

My response to Ivar Giaever: Sell out or senile

Ivar Giaever was once a great physicist. He made a very public spectacle of resigning from APS over the word “incontrovertible” in its position statement on AGW. He phrases it in high and mighty language about how science does not consider anything incontrovertible.

This is a nuanced and artful dodge. He does not come out and deny the science itself - but he directly undermines the results none the less. This way he gets to create propaganda without openly saying something scientific that can be directly disproved. Instead, he makes a “principled” stand on the grounds of philosophy pointed at propaganda even though Ivar knows that there are many incontrovertible things in science.

Consider the roundness of the Earth. This was once open for debate. Is it now? Is that incontrovertible? Consider the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun (also once a topic of intense debate). Nothing will ever change those things. No new discovery will invalidate them without invalidating essentially all other human scientific knowledge. The same can be said for relativity, the fact that CO2 absorbs IR in certain bands, the fact that energy is conserved and the fact that ice melts when it gets hot. Perhaps there is room to doubt that atoms are real (in a physical as opposed to philosophical way) also?

Ivar, of course knows that he is on shaky ground even from a purely philosophical point of view. The best he can do from his stance is make a lame argument based on Cartesian Doubt… Yes, Ivar, in that context, nothing can ever be proven… and while we are at it, all of reality could be the dream of the blue turtle. Scientists who believe that truly then should have no reason to take data on anything. So, if you truly think that way, why did you ever bother doing physics for your career?

The “incontrovertible” language in the APS position has been in the position statement for years now. Many members urged that it be put in (including myself). It is odd that he so suddenly decided to get a bug in his ass about it. In the intervening years since the position statement was written, the data has been coming in mountains confirming the correctness of the stance.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

And in reality it is you who wants to do that, really, there is nothing scientific on what Ivar is doing.

And that is why then we are entering the realm of politics.

My response to Ivar Giaever: Sell out or senile - LGF Pages

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that Ivar knows more about science and the scientific method of inquiry than you do.

You’re COMPLETELY wrong wrong about this. And you have now exposed yourself to not really give a shit about “science”. Your answer to Ivar is to attempt to shift the burden of proof. And a transparent, ludicrous, 100% fallacious attempt. (Did you read the link? If so read it again!)

At least I understand where you’re coming from better now. Science is what we should look at. Except when, well, it might have us slightly rethink things. In those cases, faith, baby, FAITH! Thou shalt not question the the certitude of what you think to be true.

Unbelievable.

[XT]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Enough with the friggin links already. I asked you a question that you need no—zero—links to answer. I’m asking you what YOU think. The questions I asked couldn’t be more basic. You know what “science” is, right? You know what “burden of proof” is, right? If not, here.
[/QUOTE]

Not GIGO, nor anywhere as knowledgeable as he is, but…what about using ocean heat (not temperature) as one of the metrics to confirm the theory? My somewhat limited understanding is that water such as the oceans can store heat and is less susceptible to random short term variations in temperature. Haven’t the oceans been accumulating more heat over the last decade or so? Isn’t that why coral all over the world has been showing signs of stress/distress? Wouldn’t that be one metric that could be used to show the theory is on track AND is a real, honest to gods theory (i.e. it is certainly falsifiable)?

-XT

[pikey_pete]

all I have to say about science deniers is that I love it when the name for a scientific concept gets changed because the evidence shows that we were on the right track, but lacked all the information (i.e. global warming becoming global climate change,) and all the science deniers suddenly start pointing to it and screaming about how science is just making shit up. Best show out there. Why? because these are the same people who figured that changing Creationism to Intelligent Design would suddenly give creationism a respectable air of science. If this is what science believers are doing…at least they havent had a ‘cdesign proponentist’ fiasco.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that Ivar knows more about science and the scientific method of inquiry than you do.

And you are missing the point of the piece, Ivar should know better.

@magellan01

You’re COMPLETELY wrong wrong about this. And you have now exposed yourself to not really give a shit about “science”. Your answer to Ivar is to attempt to shift the burden of proof. And a transparent, ludicrous, 100% fallacious attempt. (Did you read the link? If so read it again!)

Nope, first we have to figure out if Ivar did any science on this, as his expertise was not on atmospheric physics, you are relying on the good old argument by authority.

@magellan01

At least I understand where you’re coming from better now. Science is what we should look at. Except when, well, it might have us slightly rethink things. In those cases, faith, baby, FAITH! Thou shalt not question the the certitude of what you think to be true.

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable that you are reaching for fallacies to make your point? Not strange on your case.

Really. what the contributors to Little Green Footbals are finding is not reassuring, he is really a worse example to rally as a champion of your cause than the other skeptic that renounced a few years ago, even before this latest talking point appeared (because that is what it is, until his specific scientific research on the issue is published, he is just like any other person giving an opinion), more evidence has come to support what the physicists are telling us about the heat properties of CO2 and the increase of the human made one.

[pikey_pete]

Ummmmm, GIGO…I was just going to point out that you can almost never take science paid for by politics seriously. its kind of an extension of Occam’s razor. politics requires too many assumptions to be made.

[pikey_pete]

@magellan01

Enough with the friggin links already. I asked you a question that you need no—zero—links to answer. I’m asking you what YOU think. The questions I asked couldn’t be more basic. You know what “science” is, right? You know what “burden of proof” is, right? If not, here.

actually, I would prefer the links Maggie. You see, otherwise GIGO might have to take too much space in the forum typing out the support for his positions. and that wouldn’t make for enjoyable reading in the pit. links are just so much more efficient.