# Global Warming Redux: Have they lost their credibility? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090 "2010-02-15T18:07:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/1 "2010-02-15T18:07:51Z")
OK, this is 500th global warming thread here on the SDMB (give or take a few). According to Phil Jones, besides admitting to being sloppy with his record keeping, the world was [possibly warmer](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)during medieval times than it is now. I don’t recall reading about cars, jets or coal burning power plants around that time unless I was asleep during that part of history class. Also, there has been no “statistically significant” global warming over the past 15 years. He also admits to have lost track of the raw data used in his reports. Tie this in to the controversies over the reliance on [weather stations](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece)in urban areas, the Himalayan glaciers melting and the shoddy calculations used for [flooding susceptibility](http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/15/ipcc-admits-new-error-in-key-climate-report.html)in the Netherlands, is anyone else out there doing a little :rolleyes: whenever you hear something new about how much we are destroying the environment? I’m sure some sites (such as the ever popular [RealClimate.org](http://www.realclimate.org/)) will dismiss or minimize the problems. However, we are making policy and economic changes based on reports being put out by the Nobel Prize winning organization. My friend is a forensic chemist and she said that if her data was that suspect she would have had her credibility destroyed on the witness stand and would probably be fired. Bottom line, should we be telling the IPCC and the AGW proponents to STFU until they get their acts together by double checking their reports and data or, better yet, going back to square one and trying again? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/2 "2010-02-15T18:13:23Z")
The consensus among genuine scientists is that climate change caused by human actions is real. Those who don’t want to believe this continue to finds reasons not to. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/3 "2010-02-15T18:17:01Z")
There have always been climate changes- cooling trends and warming trends. Even long before man was here, even before the dinosaurs were here. Thus the fact of the Medieval Warm period does not detract from the fact of Global Warming. It does show that it was fairly warm then, and things weren’t so bad. There was also the Little Ice Age, and things were pretty tough then. There _has_ been a recent warming trend over the last century. How much of that is natural and how much caused by humans is a matter of debate. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/4 "2010-02-15T18:26:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > How much of that is natural and how much caused by humans is a matter of debate. Sure. A debate that has the vast majority of the worlds scientists backed by data on one side, and large corporations like Exxon who fund disinformation campaigns by [Astroturing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) on the other hand. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/5 "2010-02-15T18:48:08Z")
> [@Slypork](#): > > Also, there has been no “statistically significant” global warming over the past 15 years. Could you please tell us what the global temperatures have been, annually, for the past 15 years? It should be simple enough to see if things are indeed getting hotter or not. I’m not sure what “statistical signficance” would have to do in this context, which I interpret to mean an inference test. Since there’s only one population of annual global temperatures, we don’t need to conduct any inferential test to determine if a given value is greater or not. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/6 "2010-02-15T18:57:50Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Sure. > > A debate that has the vast majority of the worlds scientists backed by data on one side, and large corporations like Exxon who fund disinformation campaigns by [Astroturing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) on the other hand. - Really? \* The _vast majority of the worlds scientists_ know precisely how much of the current climate change is caused by humans? Last I heard it was a “significant” amount or that “very likely” most of the current trend was caused by humans. I have also seen “due primarily”, " most of the warming"\* and other terms. I have seen no consensus that sez "68% of the warming is caused by humans. " “\*There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” [http://amap.no/acia/](http://amap.no/acia/) Or, maybe you just didn’t read my post carefully and thought I said \*whether or not any is caused by humans. \*:dubious: There is little doubt of a current warming trend, as I said. There is little doubt humans are one of the causes of that trend. How great is the trend, and how much humnas have caused is a matter of debate. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/7 "2010-02-15T19:31:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The consensus among genuine scientists is that climate change caused by human actions is real. > > Those who don’t want to believe this continue to finds reasons not to. So I guess John Christy was a “genuine” scientist when he was a lead author on the IPCC but is not one now that he’s expressing doubts about AGW? Those who want to believe AGW will continue to find reasons to do so even as the “consensus” among “genuine” scientists erodes. ---
**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:** [February 15, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/8 "2010-02-15T20:19:53Z")
> [@Slypork](#): > > OK, this is 500th global warming thread here on the SDMB (give or take a few). According to Phil Jones, besides admitting to being sloppy with his record keeping, the world was [possibly warmer](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)during medieval times than it is now. I don’t recall reading about cars, jets or coal burning power plants around that time unless I was asleep during that part of history class. To begin, I was on record already of putting Phil Jones over the coals for being the most clumsy of researchers, not for his work but for how he is all thumbs dealing with the media and critics. That being said: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily\_mail\_caught\_in\_another\_l.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php) > [@](#): > > Following the heels of the Rosegate scandal where journalist David Rose was exposed as a serial quote fabricator, the credibility of Rose’s newspaper, the Daily Mail, has taken another body blow with the paper publishing a false story claiming that Phil Jones had admitted that there had been no global warming since 1995. > > This is false (see graph below) and Jones made no such admission. Michael Tobis has the details on the Daily Mail’s dishonesty. > [@Slypork](#): > > Also, there has been no “statistically significant” global warming over the past 15 years. He also admits to have lost track of the raw data used in his reports. > **[Journalism](https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html)** > > Journalism at its most irresponsible. There really ought to be a law. At least there ought to be consequences. The BBC interviews Phil Jones... > [@](#): > > Journalism at its most irresponsible. There really ought to be a law. At least there ought to be consequences. > > The BBC interviews Phil Jones: > > ``` > B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming > > Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. > > ``` > > The Daily Mail headline: > > ``` > Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 > > ``` > > Right. > > but the text is more reasonable, if also, well, wrong: > > ``` > He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. > > He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend. > > ``` > > As is common, the most egregious behavior is by the anonymous headline writer. The journalist, Jonathan Petre, can claim innocence, except for the peculiar use of the word “blip” showing a mind boggling lack of understanding of statistics for someone reporting on science, but at least an attempt at fairness. > [@Slypork](#): > > Tie this in to the controversies over the reliance on [weather stations](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece)in urban areas, Untie that, that is indeed a very fraudulent thing to say by the Times. > **[Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?](https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm)** > > While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends. > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends. > > When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001). > > They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they’re aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records. > > This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded “Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures… Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.” > > Another more recent study (Parker 2006) plotted 50 year records of temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. He concluded “temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development”. > [@Slypork](#): > > the Himalayan glaciers melting About the only “big” error found among thousands of items in the report, and still the glaciars are melting, it is just that not at the estimation of the error that was a typo and that did not change the science. [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/02/indians\_go\_wacko.php](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/02/indians_go_wacko.php) > [@Slypork](#): > > and the shoddy calculations used for [flooding susceptibility](http://news.oneindia.in/2010/02/15/ipcc-admits-new-error-in-key-climate-report.html)in the Netherlands, Yeah, did you notice the government of the Netherlands complaining about the IPCC using the the data that was furnished by the government of the Netherlands? In any case the scientists from the Netherlands report that this error is only grave to the mind of the shoddy reporters. [http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/content/correction-wording-flood-risks.html](http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/content/correction-wording-flood-risks.html) > [@Slypork](#): > > is anyone else out there doing a little :rolleyes: whenever you hear something new about how much we are destroying the environment? I would wonder why even after acknowledging that there had been many threads on this before you did not bother to understand that many on the media do not have a clue or do maliciously misinterpret the reports from the scientists. > [@Slypork](#): > > I’m sure some sites (such as the ever popular [RealClimate.org](http://www.realclimate.org/)) will dismiss or minimize the problems. However, we are making policy and economic changes based on reports being put out by the Nobel Prize winning organization. And you propose to then trust Mc Experts to lead the way? incidentally not a link to RealClimate was used for this post, even though they are also climate researchers. > [@Slypork](#): > > My friend is a forensic chemist and she said that if her data was that suspect she would have had her credibility destroyed on the witness stand and would probably be fired. Bottom line, should we be telling the IPCC and the AGW proponents to STFU until they get their acts together by double checking their reports and data or, better yet, going back to square one and trying again? So far the IPCC has been found to have an error rate that would be envy of many organizations, when reporters are coming with no perspective and misleading quotations it is not the IPCC who gets to be discredited, but the denier media. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/journalismgate.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/journalismgate.php) > [@](#): > > Despite their best efforts to destroy the credibility of the IPCC reports, they’ve only managed to come up with two actual errors in three phone book size reports: > > ``` > * WG2 wrongly said that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 > * WG2 said that the Netherlands was vulnerable sea level rise and river floodingbecause 55% of its area is bleow sea level when it should have said that 26% was below sea level and 29% vulnerable to river flooding. > > ``` > > I guess its possible that there’s more, but the bottom line is that in three enormous volumes, just two errors have been found. The credibility of the IPCC is in good shape, unlike that of the British press. ---
**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:** [February 15, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/9 "2010-02-15T20:29:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I have seen no consensus that sez "68% of the warming is caused by humans. " > **[How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm)** > > \An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2.... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming. As for the consensus that counts: 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97\_of\_active\_climatologists\_ag.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php) > [@DrDeth](#): > > Or, maybe you just didn’t read my post carefully and thought I said \*whether or not any is caused by humans. \*:dubious: > > There is little doubt of a current warming trend, as I said. There is little doubt humans are one of the causes of that trend. How great is the trend, and how much humnas have caused is a matter of debate. > **[How sensitive is our climate?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm)** > > \Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth’s past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C. ---
**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:** [February 15, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/10 "2010-02-15T20:36:25Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > So I guess John Christy was a “genuine” scientist when he was a lead author on the IPCC but is not one now that he’s expressing doubts about AGW? > > Those who want to believe AGW will continue to find reasons to do so even as the “consensus” among “genuine” scientists erodes. As the pattern shows that denier media and clumsy reporters are all thumbs regarding the science, I assume by default that the people they mention are misquoted or were wrong before. (Even if mistaken, that does not mean they deserve to be dumped, do you have a cite that John Christy lost his position for making an honest mistake?) > **[Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere](https://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm)** > > Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropical data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concludes the discrepancy is most likely... > [@](#): > > So where does that leave us? An “Executive Summary” by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes: > > ``` > "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved. > > This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open." > > ``` > > In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models. You did notice who made the correction? Yeah, I thought you would notice. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/11 "2010-02-15T20:49:09Z")
You know, AGW, real or imagined as with most things green is a good idea on it’s own merit. The things that we can accomplish with little to no deviation _should_ be done anyway. The crazy folks that keep pushing this in order to set an agenda (if that is what they are doing) will cause AGW to be a misshapen heap of collective dung, to be lumped on the dung heap. Baby Steps. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/12 "2010-02-15T20:52:58Z")
> [@](#): > > So I guess John Christy was a “genuine” scientist when he was a lead author on the IPCC but is not one now that he’s expressing doubts about AGW? > > Those who want to believe AGW will continue to find reasons to do so even as the “consensus” among “genuine” scientists erodes. Consensus: buy a dictionary and look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/13 "2010-02-15T21:12:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The consensus among genuine scientists is that climate change caused by human actions is real. > > Those who don’t want to believe this continue to finds reasons not to. Except that the consensus was based on the works of people like Phil Jones who advanced the “hockey stick” graph back 2000 years. He’s now back-peddling and admits he can’t produce the material to back it up. I’m not a scientist but every business project I ever worked on required that I be able to produce the background numbers on demand for review. This was for projects ranging from thousands to over a million dollars a year. in comparison, we’re being asked to accept data and models that are not subject to review for decisions that will start in the billions and will certainly cost trillions when looked at globally. It’s important that the information and theoretical models be accurate. This doesn’t mean we abandon research on climate or methods of mitigating possible damage. All this means is that we don’t chase down a blind trail spending money irresponsibly. ---
**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:** [February 15, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/14 "2010-02-15T21:36:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Except that the consensus was based on the works of people like Phil Jones who advanced the “hockey stick” graph back 2000 years. He’s now back-peddling and admits he can’t produce the material to back it up. No, that is not what he said. And he is still referring to the previous reconstruction done by him, he is not part of the group that worked in the later reconstruction that did publish the data. [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252](http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252) > [@](#): > > Mann, M.E.; Zhang, Z., Hughes, M.K., Bradley, R.S., Miller, S.K., Rutherford, S. and Ni, F. (2008). “Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia” As it is clear you are still missing it this needs to be mentioned again: The proxy record temperature is not used to conclude that global warming gases are a problem now. > [@Magiver](#): > > I’m not a scientist but every business project I ever worked on required that I be able to produce the background numbers on demand for review. This was for projects ranging from thousands to over a million dollars a year. in comparison, we’re being asked to accept data and models that are not subject to review for decisions that will start in the billions and will certainly cost trillions when looked at globally. It’s important that the information and theoretical models be accurate. > > This doesn’t mean we abandon research on climate or methods of mitigating possible damage. All this means is that we don’t chase down a blind trail spending money irresponsibly. Fine, that is why the research of Mann was reviewed once again and so far the conclusion is that regarding his previous and latest hockey stick reconstructions Mann did not change or altered the data. [http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/04/penn-state-michael-mann-hockey-stick-science/](http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/04/penn-state-michael-mann-hockey-stick-science/) > [@](#): > > ``` > An academic inquiry into the so-called “climategate” email scandal has concluded that a well-known U.S. scientist did not directly or indirectly falsify data in his research. > > The review, by a panel of senior administrators at Pennsylvania State University, found no evidence that climatologist Michael Mann had manipulated research that indicates humans are causing global warming. > > ``` > > This finding is a big setback for the anti-science crowd, who have been going after Mann full throttle, trying to find imaginary whistleblowers to accuse him and others at Penn State of fraud (see “Anti-science disinformers step up efforts to intimidate and harass climate scientists.” > > The anti-scientists hate Mann, one of the country’s leading climatologists, for his role in creating the Hockey Stick graph, which they still maintain is fraudulent, when in fact it was essentially vindicated in a thorough examination by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (see NAS Report and here). > > Even more important than the fact that the original analysis was defensibly correct, is that the conclusions were correct [which could be true even if the analysis had flaws in it]. Is the planet now as hot (or hotter) than it has been in a millenium? Try two millennia — see “Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years,“ which discusses the PNAS study that is the source of the above graph. As for Phil Jones, I already said that I will not defend his sorry character, but this once again does not deny so far that his or other research are not valid. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/15 "2010-02-15T21:54:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Except that the consensus was based on the works of people like Phil Jones who advanced the “hockey stick” graph back 2000 years. He’s now back-peddling and admits he can’t produce the material to back it up. Like I’ve been saying, the word is “consensus”. Seriously, a lot of people don’t understand what the term means. It doesn’t mean unanimous approval. If 10,000 scientists say something is the mainstream view of their field, then the fact that one guy (or even 100 guys) disagree or changed their minds doesn’t invalidate the consensus. And it’s not a democracy. Lawyers and talk show hosts and liberal arts majors and car mechanics and brain surgeons don’t get to vote - they may be intelligent and knowledgeable people in their own fields of expertise but they’re not climatologists. If doctors say flu vaccines are a good idea, you don’t ban them because Jenny McCarthy thinks they cause autism. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/16 "2010-02-15T22:09:45Z")
I think its fair to say the AGW is taking a fair beating in the media, and that its effecting a lot of people in the street. I dont think its fair to say this is based on a credible debunking of the research. Its comes across more as classic god of the gaps arguments, where it cant offer credible alternative theories for the data, other than ‘its a green conspiracy’ shticks. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/17 "2010-02-15T22:47:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Like I’ve been saying, the word is “consensus”. Seriously, a lot of people don’t understand what the term means. It doesn’t mean unanimous approval. If 10,000 scientists say something is the mainstream view of their field, then the fact that one guy (or even 100 guys) disagree or changed their minds doesn’t invalidate the consensus. > > And it’s not a democracy. Lawyers and talk show hosts and liberal arts majors and car mechanics and brain surgeons don’t get to vote - they may be intelligent and knowledgeable people in their own fields of expertise but they’re not climatologists. If doctors say flu vaccines are a good idea, you don’t ban them because Jenny McCarthy thinks they cause autism. “Climatology” is not a singular discipline. It consists of computer programmers, mathematicians and a host of other sciences that come together under a banner name. Each of those disciplines are links in a chain and each discipline depends on the accuracy of the others. When we see University programs where there is deliberate exclusion or manipulation of data and individuals such as Jones who cannot back up their work then those links have to be discarded. It’s amazing that people are so locked into the concept of Global Warming that no amount of bad information can supplant a desire to promote policies regardless of monetary consequence. When prominent scientists have been exposed for fraud or misrepresentation of data then common sense dictates that we question what is going on in the broader field to ensure we move in the right direction. ---
**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:** [February 15, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/18 "2010-02-15T22:53:30Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > I think its fair to say the AGW is taking a fair beating in the media, and that its effecting a lot of people in the street. > > I dont think its fair to say this is based on a credible debunking of the research. Its comes across more as classic god of the gaps arguments, where it cant offer credible alternative theories for the data, other than ‘its a green conspiracy’ shticks. > > Otara Indeed, the only thing I would have to modify is that it is clearly an **un** fair beating. “Amazon Gate” is a good example of that unfairness: [http://climatesafety.org/swallowing-lies-how-the-denial-lobby-feeds-the-press/](http://climatesafety.org/swallowing-lies-how-the-denial-lobby-feeds-the-press/) > [@](#): > > “AmazonGate”: how the denial lobby and a dishonest journalist created a fake scandal7 > > Anyone following the recent string of articles in the mainstream press attacking the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have entertained a sneaking suspicion that the hidden hand of the climate denial lobby was at work behind many of them. That suspicion, it turns out, is exactly right – the fingerprints of the deniers are all over several of the key stories. > [@](#): > > Marginal as it may have been, for the media this isolated error appears to have opened the floodgates. A hysterical flurry of activity followed, as the denial lobby began trawling through the IPCC report for anything else that might look bad – particularly anything referencing the grey literature. The results of this search were then fed to elements of the press, who eagerly snatched them up – uncritically repeating many of their claims in the process. > [@](#): > > The allegation was quickly repeated by a sympathetic blogger on the fringes of the mainstream media, James Delingpole of the Telegraph – himself a frenetic climate change denier and far-right conspiracy theorist (he has recently stated that mainstream climate scientists “are part of a global conspiracy to expand” the state – apparently on the basis of no evidence whatsoever). Delingpole eagerly posted the story on his blog, declaring “AGW [man-made global warming] theory is toast.” > > A few days later, the story found its way onto the news pages of the Times, via reporter Jonathan Leake. “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim”, the story’s headline declared, its first paragraph telling readers the IPCC’s statement on the Amazon was “based on an unsubstantiated claim”. The last line of the article leaves us in no doubt as to its source: “Research by Richard North”. > > But it soon emerged that the claim was far from bogus. If anything, in fact, the 40% estimate may have been understated. Simon Lewis, a researcher into tropical forests at the University of Leeds, was quoted by Leake as criticizing WWF’s report. Yet Lewis had already informed Leake that the IPCC’s statement got it right. > [@](#): > > As Lewis made clear in correspondence, the problem was not with the accuracy of the IPCC’s statement, which reflected the peer-reviewed scientific literature – but with the reference that had been attributed to it. The issue had in fact already been dealt with in the report of Working Group I (on “The Physical Science Basis” of climate change), which had got the references right. Did Leake’s article accurately reflect Lewis’ views? “Absolutely not.” > > Lewis, it turns out, had sent both Leake and Harrabin the same email. But while Harrabin had included Lewis’s comments on the IPCC’s accuracy in his BBC piece, Leake simply ignored them. Instead, he seems to have invented his own, more congenial version of reality. “4000-page report makes insignificant referencing error” is admittedly a rather less powerful headline – even if it does possess the distinct advantage of being true. > [@](#): > > To give him some credit, Leake’s “bogus” headline has now been changed – though his “unsubstantiated” accusation remains. Meanwhile, things have gone full circle: the story is being cited in its original form on the website of climate deniers – and mining industry front-group – the Global Warming Policy Foundation, replete with the added credibility its status as a Times story gives it. > > While it is wholly unsurprising that the denial lobby should be attempting to push baseless and misleading stories to the press, what is surprising is the press’s willingness to swallow them. In this case, two experts in the relevant field told a Times journalist explicitly that, in spite of a minor referencing error, the IPCC had got its facts right. That journalist simply ignored them. Instead, he deliberately put out the opposite line – one fed to him by a prominent climate change denier – as fact. The implications are deeply disturbing, not only for our prospects of tackling climate change, but for basic standards of honesty and integrity in journalism. ---
**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:** [February 15, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/19 "2010-02-15T22:55:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > When we see University programs where there is deliberate exclusion or manipulation of data and individuals such as Jones who cannot back up their work then those links have to be discarded. As much huffing and puffing has been inferred, do you have a cite for that manipulation? > [@Magiver](#): > > It’s amazing that people are so locked into the concept of Global Warming that no amount of bad information can supplant a desire to promote policies regardless of monetary consequence. When prominent scientists have been exposed for fraud or misrepresentation of data then common sense dictates that we question what is going on in the broader field to ensure we move in the right direction. Again, unless you can post the evidence that there was fraud, we will have to dismiss your say so’s. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/20 "2010-02-15T23:39:34Z")
Lessee…Prof. Jones now admits that: -he faked the data, and cannot find his notes -there has been (apparently) no warming since 1995 -the “Medieval Warm Period” was a global phenomenon What part of “fraud” isn’t clear here? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=2)