# Global Warming for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172 "2012-01-30T08:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/141 "2012-01-31T18:40:38Z")
As to the OP: The obvious reason you should believe that AGW is happening, is that the vast majority of scientific specialists in the field agree it is. What is argued here has no bearing on what the vast majority of scientists agree on. It’s not a simple question, it’s a complex question that requires a lot of knowledge to assess. The people with that knowledge are vastly in agreement. What some unqualified dudes on a message board, without any particular ability, think they see as holes in the research is meaningless. The research is peer-reviewed and overwhelming. Might it be wrong? I’m not qualified to say. But the experts, the real experts, think they aren’t. So why not believe the 98% in agreement, rather than the 2% with reservations? ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/142 "2012-01-31T18:50:31Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m still waiting for you to prove your case instead of linking to vanity sites. Your excuses have the taint of woo. > > Listen, your argument has to go like this: > > “Here is a peer reviewed scientific paper that explains the mechanism where by the changes in CO2 levels we see cause the earth to continuously warm.” > > And then you put a link in there to the paper. You won’t have trouble finding papers that hypothesize that the greenhouse effect is the mechanism, you just have to find one that establishes some proof. And it is just like I said to others before: just click on the blue links to get to the reviewed papers after quoting what they are, but I guess that is too hard for some. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/143 "2012-01-31T19:14:11Z")
[quote=“GIGObuster, post:84, topic:611172”] And once again, I would think you will find that it is the contrarians who would scream louder at that. Nope. > [@](#): > > The point of the tread is about how the press is doing with the evidence and to keep information at simple levels for the OP, I have made already plenty of cites on what to do and what are the places to check for better information than what the Daily [del]Fail[/del] Mail can provide, can you comment on those? If you looked at my blog I already linked to Skeptical Science. I’m not really interested in links to material I’m already familiar with. Keep in mind that John Cook is not a scientist and what you are reading is a layman’s interpretation on climate science. Actually my favorite link is an article that explains the math on global warming. If you understand the actual math, you know more about global warming than 99% of the general public and practically all of Congress. If you don’t understand the math, you are at the mercy of other people’s opinion on the topic. [http://www.randombio.com/co2.html](http://www.randombio.com/co2.html) BTW, to save time, here is the link to Climate Skeptic on sensitivity. [http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/144 "2012-01-31T19:23:19Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > As to the OP: The obvious reason you should believe that AGW is happening, is that the vast majority of scientific specialists in the field agree it is. > > What is argued here has no bearing on what the vast majority of scientists agree on. It’s not a simple question, it’s a complex question that requires a lot of knowledge to assess. The people with that knowledge are vastly in agreement. What some unqualified dudes on a message board, without any particular ability, think they see as holes in the research is meaningless. > > The research is peer-reviewed and overwhelming. Might it be wrong? I’m not qualified to say. But the experts, the real experts, think they aren’t. So why not believe the 98% in agreement, rather than the 2% with reservations? Because science is not democratic. Before new theories are proven, the majority of scientists will be wrong. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And it is just like I said to others before: just click on the blue links to get to the reviewed papers after quoting what they are, but I guess that is too hard for some. Pick a link. I’m not going to read all that. If you have a case you could summarize it and point to a single paper offering some proof. Do that and I’ll start looking at your other links. I’m the skeptic here, you have to show 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:** [January 31, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/145 "2012-01-31T19:23:44Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > If you looked at my blog I already linked to Skeptical Science. I’m not really interested in links to material I’m already familiar with. Keep in mind that John Cook is not a scientist and what you are reading is a layman’s interpretation on climate science. And that is ok, it was the main reason I picked it specially for this tread, remember, the OP is looking for layman level information. (and once one chooses the advanced tab there are even more links to the science If one wants to go further than the layman’s level) > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Actually my favorite link is an article that explains the math on global warming. If you understand the actual math, you know more about global warming than 99% of the general public and practically all of Congress. If you don’t understand the math, you are at the mercy of other people’s opinion on the topic. > > [http://www.randombio.com/co2.html](http://www.randombio.com/co2.html) And then watch the layman’s eyes glaze. 🙂 > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > BTW, to save time, here is the link to Climate Skeptic on sensitivity. > > [http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm) Indeed, for the layman in many of us. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/146 "2012-01-31T19:45:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And then watch the layman’s eyes glaze. 🙂 I assume that even a layman should be able to follow basic algebra. When it comes to science you need to understand some math or admit that you don’t have an informed opinion on the topic. The is nothing in Dr. Nelson’s article that requires anything I didn’t learn in high school. If you don’t learn some math, then you aren’t going to learn anything. All you are going to learn is how to parrot other people’s opinion. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/147 "2012-01-31T19:59:14Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I assume that even a layman should be able to follow basic algebra. When it comes to science you need to understand some math or admit that you don’t have an informed opinion on the topic. The is nothing in Dr. Nelson’s article that requires anything I didn’t learn in high school. > > If you don’t learn some math, then you aren’t going to learn anything. All you are going to learn is how to parrot other people’s opinion. Math is useful. Logic is what is necessary. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/148 "2012-01-31T20:08:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The quote is to deal with a non scientific point in this case discouraging others from reading information, but thank you for showing others how adept you are on that regard. Sorry, “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” has no bearing if you can’t at least verify his claims. His sciencey claims are there to show his opinion is good and we should be listening to him. It is one guy with a claim and absolutely no proof at all; zero, zilch, nada. Unless of course “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” #1 criticizing “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon”#2 is proof of anything. For all we know “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon”#1 hasn’t actually read the book. And “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” #2 isn’t “discouraging others from reading information”, he says, and I quote him"\*There are a lot of books on Amazon which will explain the truth behind the issue. I don’t expect this to be one of them. So if you want to be preached to by the converted, go ahead and read this. \*". He doesnt think the author is unbiased and say it’s not worth reading it. It’s not a conspiracy to hide the truth, it’s not a book-burning: It’s two anonymous blokes on a webpage. It has no scientific value, non at all; it is useless, it’s a sign of desperation that you have to resort to that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/149 "2012-01-31T20:09:46Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I assume that even a layman should be able to follow basic algebra. When it comes to science you need to understand some math or admit that you don’t have an informed opinion on the topic. The is nothing in Dr. Nelson’s article that requires anything I didn’t learn in high school. > > If you don’t learn some math, then you aren’t going to learn anything. All you are going to learn is how to parrot other people’s opinion. Indeed, but one has to notice one insignificant problem, the article is from 2003 and claimed that the protections on CO2 emissions were wrong as: > [@](#): > > They are assuming that fossil fuel consumption will increase drastically over current levels. This is very unlikely. > **[Greenhouse gases rise by record amount](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/04/greenhouse-gases-rise-record-levels)** > > Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago > [@](#): > > Greenhouse gases rise by record amount > > Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago And that is just from a simple glance, I would not be surprised to find many other blunders. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/150 "2012-01-31T20:12:30Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sorry, “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” has no bearing if you can’t at least verify his claims. His sciencey claims are there to show his opinion is good and we should be listening to him. It is one guy with a claim and absolutely no proof at all; zero, zilch, nada. > > Unless of course “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” #1 criticizing “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon”#2 is proof of anything. > > For all we know “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon”#1 hasn’t actually read the book. > And “Anonymous reviewer on Amazon” #2 isn’t “discouraging others from reading information”, he says, and I quote him"\*There are a lot of books on Amazon which will explain the truth behind the issue. I don’t expect this to be one of them. So if you want to be preached to by the converted, go ahead and read this. \*". He doesnt think the author is unbiased and say it’s not worth reading it. It’s not a conspiracy to hide the truth, it’s not a book-burning: It’s two anonymous blokes on a webpage. > It has no scientific value, non at all; it is useless, it’s a sign of desperation that you have to resort to that. Reading comprehension again, I already mention that there was no science in the example, only to show how other layman are seeing this, and as the polls show I’m glad many still agree with the scientists even after all the efforts made here and elsewhere to disparage the experts. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/151 "2012-01-31T20:16:57Z")
(sorry for doubleposting) [quote=“JoelUpchurch, post:143, topic:611172”] > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually my favorite link is an article that explains the math on global warming. If you understand the actual math, you know more about global warming than 99% of the general public and practically all of Congress. If you don’t understand the math, you are at the mercy of other people’s opinion on the topic. > > [http://www.randombio.com/co2.html](http://www.randombio.com/co2.html) Excellent link. I’ve stolen it by the way. I loved, in particular, in the part called “How long will it take to double CO2 levels?” when he show the same chart stating a 290 and 0 and how it changes the perception. And yeah, high school math (if you were paying attention) excepy maybe for "linear extrapolation. That’s first-semester-in-college statistics. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/152 "2012-01-31T20:23:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Reading comprehension again, I already mention that there was no science in the example, only to show how other layman are seeing this, and as the polls show I’m glad many still agree with the scientists even after all the efforts made here and elsewhere to disparage the experts. Of course there is no science, nobody said that. “Your” commenter claims “_As a professional ecological restorationist who works with scientific data to predict ecological succession_”, those are the sciencey claims i was refering to. It’s not “_(an)other layman …seeing this_” it’s a comment on another comment which doesn’t even say what you claim, it’s not a relfection on anything else. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/153 "2012-01-31T20:37:06Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Excellent link. I’ve stolen it by the way. > I loved, in particular, in the part called “How long will it take to double CO2 levels?” when he show the same chart stating a 290 and 0 and how it changes the perception. > > And yeah, high school math (if you were paying attention) excepy maybe for "linear extrapolation. That’s first-semester-in-college statistics. Again, just at a simple glance there is already a flaw, the claim was there that says that CO2 emissions could not increase as much as assumed, the real data has shown otherwise, it really needs an update. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/154 "2012-01-31T20:40:08Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It’s not “_(an)other layman …seeing this_” it’s a comment on another comment which doesn’t even say what you claim, it’s not a relfection on anything else. Unless we assume that they are robots typing that, this is really a silly thing to say. ---
**Author:** ![brittekland](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@brittekland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brittekland)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/155 "2012-01-31T20:51:48Z")
So, are we essentially saying since you can arguably proclaim that no politically neutral scientist can prove with any indisputable scientific data that, by everyone pooping into the well, the town’s only drink well water quality does get significantly nastier than if it is left alone, therefore we all ought to continue pooping into the well and feed our children with the water from it? Umm… Otay. > **[Marine pollution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_pollution)** > > Lists > Categories > > Marine pollution occurs when substances used or spread by humans, such as industrial, agricultural and residential waste, particles, noise, excess carbon dioxide or invasive organisms enter the ocean and cause harmful effects there. The majority of this waste (80%) comes from land-based activity, although marine transportation significantly contributes as well. It is a combination of chemicals and trash, most of which comes from land sources and is washed or blown into the oc... > **[Climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)** > > In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its effects on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, not... [http://www.ngpowereu.com/news/Nuclear-power-plant-attacked-by-giant-jellyfish/](http://www.ngpowereu.com/news/Nuclear-power-plant-attacked-by-giant-jellyfish/) > **[Great Pacific Garbage Patch: Overview, Impacts, Solutions](https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-the-great-pacific-ocean-garbage-patch-4864171)** > > Learn about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a huge sea of plastic trash in the North Pacific—part of an even broader plastic plague. > **[Jellyfish can cause a nuclear power plant meltdown](https://www.ibtimes.com/jellyfish-can-cause-nuclear-power-plant-meltdown-707679)** > > A swarm of jellyfish blocks the water supply which is used as a coolant at the Orot Rabin nuclear power plant in Hadera, Israel. > **[Who, What, Why: Why are we plagued by jellyfish?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14556755)** > > Jellyfish appear to be on the rise in UK waters, research suggests. Why? > **[Water pollution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution)** > > Lists > Categories > Water pollution (or aquatic pollution) is the contamination of water bodies, usually as a result of human activities, so that it negatively affects its uses.: 6  Water bodies include lakes, rivers, oceans, aquifers, reservoirs and groundwater. Water pollution results when contaminants mix with these water bodies. Contaminants can come from one of four main sources: sewage discharges, industrial activities, agricultural activities, and urban runoff including stormwater. Water... ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/156 "2012-01-31T20:57:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Unless we assume that they are robots typing that, this is really a silly thing to say. No. It’s like saying “my neighbour once heard a guy who didn’t beleive in AGW and said that an Inconvenient Truth was shit and he hoped his cinema would stop showing it” and making it more than anecdote, and anecdote was all you posted one guy dissing one guy. Unless you literally mean that the addition of this one anonymous guy’s comment is a boost for your metaphorical book-burning scenario. It’d be really sad. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2012, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/157 "2012-01-31T21:09:33Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No. It’s like saying “my neighbour once heard a guy who didn’t beleive in AGW and said that an Inconvenient Truth was shit and he hoped his cinema would stop showing it” and making it more than anecdote, and anecdote was all you posted one guy dissing one guy. > Unless you literally mean that the addition of this one anonymous guy’s comment is a boost for your metaphorical book-burning scenario. It’d be really sad. Meh, it was just an example, of a recommended review BTW, once again it is only one item to notice and the book is amusing. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/158 "2012-01-31T21:20:34Z")
OP asks > [@](#): > > I really want to believe the scientists, but the skeptics make better public arguments. What OP needs to remember is that one “side of the debate” is largely composed of scientists interested in truth. The other side is driven in part by greedy corporations. Truth-seeking scientists, by their nature, are likely to use unemotional diction and phrases (“according to consensus models”, “given these assumptions”) that may seem to be equivocating. The other side is happy to resort to any lie or distortion. OP, are you asking the truth-telling scientists to use bombastic language and distortions like their opponents do? I’m not particularly ignorant about the physical sciences, but I can’t personally verify the science I read. Heck, I couldn’t even explain chemically why CO2 is a greenhouse gas and N2 isn’t. (I could Google for an answer, but why would I want or need to?) At least two deniers have emphasized to me that CO2 is “only 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume – a rare, and thus unimportant, trace chemical.” How could anyone who thinks the “rarity” of CO2 is an important factoid have an intelligent view on climate change? Do they really think all the fuss is about a misplaced decimal point on the CO2 figure? 😕 :smack: > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m perfectly happy with the specialization of knowledge we’ve got in our society. I don’t think hobbyists are equipped to debate AGW with folks who’ve devoted their lives to its study. This is the key point. I’m not afraid to contradict “established wisdom” if I think my opinions are worthwhile, but most of the argumentation one hears laymen making against scientists is laughably ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/159 "2012-01-31T21:41:45Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > That’s your quote??? Anonymous guy on Amazon??? Of a book with 5 reviews?? 😕 GIGObuster was not citing the “anonymous guy” on a matter of science, just showing an opinion. But you are correct, **Ají de Gallina** , that understanding _who_ you’re citing is important. That’s why I was surprised to see in another thread: > [@Question for Climate Skeptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/102): > > I have a couple of cite from denialist places. Please respond to the actual data. > … > [“Dropped” minus signs in adjustments.](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/giss-metar-dial-m-for-missing-minus-signs-its-worse-than-we-thought/) This was the only link I clicked in that thread; I thought a “dropped minus sign” might be something I could understand and save GIGO a click. (BTW, Kudos to GIGO whose patience in these threads is inspiring!) The screed you link to, **Ají de Gallina** , reduces my confidence in your arguments. Right off we see a cartoon poking fun at Al Gore. May I ask you, Ají, whether seeing such a cartoon enhances or diminishes your confidence in the site? Although seeing the cartoon “told me what I needed to know”, I did browse the rest of the page and discovered the fatuous blogwriter and his self-important writing just makes an (easily testable) guess about data. Are you suggesting, Ají, that scientists need to respond to every guess, however inane, put forth by an obviously ignorant layman? (I did see the blogger claimed to have won a Best Science Blog award :smack: ) ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/160 "2012-01-31T22:40:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Indeed, but one has to notice one insignificant problem, the article is from 2003 and claimed that the protections on CO2 emissions were wrong as: You need to read the more closely. Dr. Nelson updates the article regularly. The last update was Jan 2011. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=9)