# 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:** 10
**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 22, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/181 "2010-02-22T22:07:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Can you point to any mistakes that have made it into the IPCC report that make warming look less severe than it is? I can’t think of any. > > The fact that all the mistakes are in one direction tends to indicate bias on the part of of peer reviewers. How many papers presenting evidence against AGW were rejected, when other pro-AGW papers of similar quality were accepted? How many of the studies cited by the IPCC have flaws that slipped through the peer reivew process? How many of the conclusions are based on flawed results? > > I don’t think we know the answers to this yet. The rate at which errors are uncovered appears to be increasing - perhaps because more scientists are becoming skeptical and are spending more time and energy studying the state of AGW research. As it was pointed out before the reality is that so far in this latest “debunking” only one mistake can be taken as serious. So, it is silly to talk about a rate of increasing errors. Remember, you are still counting on misleading or lying reports. ---
**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 22, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/182 "2010-02-22T22:10:07Z")
> [@Slypork](#): > > And we need to demand the scientists whose work has been called into question to go back to those media outlets and give the clarifications. Don’t go to realclimate or climateskeptics or such. Actually go to the newspapers or Fox or the denier blogs and state the clarifications. Tell them, “Yes, the initial report said XYZ but we’ve now determined that it is actually ABC. This does not mean that we are going to freeze to death like you reported. It means yadda yadda yadda.” Then the public will say, “Ahh! Now it makes more sense than what was originally reported.” I will get to rest later, but here you have to realize that as Nature and others have reported, scientists did demand to the reporter to not misinterpret the scientists reports, to no avail. ---
**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 22, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/183 "2010-02-22T22:13:53Z")
There is a decent opinion piece in the WSJ today on this very issue (called “Climate Change and Open Science”). The piece discusses Phil Jones’s statements to the BBC that “‘the vast majority of climate scientists’ do not believe the debate over climate change is settled” and states that Phil Jones “acknowledges there’s no consensus.” ---
**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 22, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/184 "2010-02-22T23:01:32Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > There is a decent opinion piece in the WSJ today on this very issue (called “Climate Change and Open Science”). The piece discusses Phil Jones’s statements to the BBC that “‘the vast majority of climate scientists’ do not believe the debate over climate change is settled” and states that Phil Jones “acknowledges there’s no consensus.” Even before linking I can tell you that what the WSJ is saying is BS. So, an indecent opinion piece. On edit,:Ok, just looked, they also fall for the “statistically significant warming since 1995. He said there was more warming in the medieval period” Misleading point and BS. [http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/0/\_PWDFzWt-Ag](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/0/_PWDFzWt-Ag) ---
**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 22, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/185 "2010-02-22T23:17:32Z")
As the Australian reporter says in the video: “Always check: Find where the information comes from. Is the source reliable? Does the information you have been given accurately reflect the information from the source?” This was already reported, the BBC already posted several days ago the interview with Phil Jones on February 13. > **[BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm)** > > The BBC questioned Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the Climategate e-mail affair. The WSJ vomited the reheated baloney from the Daily Mail on the 21st. The explanation why the Daily Mail reporter was misleading and false was already in post #164 By this time, one should be demanding the WSJ for journalistic malpractice, or at least ignore them until they print a retraction (not holding my breath for that). ---
**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 23, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/186 "2010-02-23T00:44:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Even before linking I can tell you that what the WSJ is saying is BS. Wait, are you saying the WSJ is wrong about what Phil Jones said, or that Phil Jones is wrong, or what? Also, on a different topic, what would it take for you personally to think there is no longer a consensus among scientists re: AGW? ---
**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 23, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/187 "2010-02-23T00:46:24Z")
> [@Slypork](#): > > I’m a climate change agnostic. As it is a theme already, you could had fooled many. 🙂 you really do not sound like an agnostic with that OP. > [@Slypork](#): > > I’m not a true believer who says there is no doubt that AGW exists. I’m also not a climate change denier saying there is no proof of its existence. I read reports and articles and turn a dubious eye to definitive statements. DDT was definitely safe. So was Thalidomide. African bees were going to swarm to Chicago. Chernobyl was going to kill millions. :dubious: You may think that bit of Gish Gallop may be convincing, but it actually demonstrates the ignorance levels that you have: Someone has misled you about DDT. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/ddt3.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/ddt3.php) Someone has mislead you about Thalidomide [http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332\_1172.asp](http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1172.asp) As for the bees, gee just because you are up north the southern states should be happy? However, lets be generous and grant you a point here. The Chernobyl point is a good one, so one can grant you that. So, we have 2 out of four. But we also have to add the say so in the OP: [QUOTE=Slypork] 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? [/QUOTE] As the research of Dr Jones was confirmed by others, and almost all of the points presented in the OP were based on misleading and false reports, the answer is **NO.** 2 out of 5 is still not a passing grade 🙂 And AGW does exist > **[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.... > **[How we know global warming is still happening](https://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html)** > > Skeptics proclaim that global warming stopped in 1998. That we're now experiencing global cooling. However, these arguments overlook one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the... ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/188 "2010-02-23T01:21:33Z")
> [@](#): > > …what would it take for you personally to think there is no longer a consensus among scientists re: AGW? When that consensus vanishes? Not speaking for **GIGO** , but he seems a reasonable sort of fellow, sort of thing I would expect a reasonable fellow to say. But here’s the thing, as I alluded to upstream: that consensus was not poltical, it was not ideological, and it was by no stretch of the imagination an instant hit. Scientists resist the Big Idea, as do most of us. But we can be moved by persuasion, an apt analogy, a spark of wit. They seem actually to despise such skills, so much of their prose seems shaped by the same dulling hand, ruthlessly determined to commit boredom and stupefaction. Science did not leap upon AGW with glad cries and a scattering of confetti, the consensus was formed upon the more or less unwilling audience by the hard empirical demands of their shared calling. AGW won that consensus not by persuasion, nor advertising. Heaven knows it wasn’t because great capital concerns rushed to shower money upon the researchers! This is accentuated by the nature of the science, like biology, climatology is much more inductive than chemistry or physics, the scientist is hampered by his inability to perform experiments on so vast a question as the Earth’s climate. You can’t cut a slice of the climate off, go to your lab and fuck around with it. The reproducible result, that most sacred of grails in science, is pretty much out of the question, you don’t get to say “Lets crank up solar output by 10%, see what happens!” You can’t do it, and even if you could, we wouldn’t let you. Therefore, opinion must change slowly, you simply don’t have the opportunity of shattering a lovely theory with a single ugly experiment. Einstein famously wiped the floor with his detractors when his exact calculations for light refraction were proved to be right. That is the wonderful of advantage of such science, but it simply isn’t possible for climate science. The current consensus for AGW was slow in coming, the tormenting drip drip drip of facts took a while to take effect. And for that consensus to disappear would take at least as much mental energy and time. Since it is nearly impossible to conceive of a single experiment that could unravel all of that inductive reasoning in one swell foop. In a nutshell, get used to it, get over it, or change your mind. ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/189 "2010-02-23T01:53:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > When that consensus vanishes? Le sigh. Yes, I forgot. You are but an impartial observer, he who sits around and drinks in the science. It doesn’t matter one bit that AGW just oh so neatly fits into your politicial philosophy, like a dick in a condom. ---
**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 23, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/190 "2010-02-23T02:09:57Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Le sigh. Yes, I forgot. You are but an impartial observer, he who sits around and drinks in the science. It doesn’t matter one bit that AGW just oh so neatly fits into your politicial philosophy, like a dick in a condom. In this thread it is clear that the WSJ and the deniers are attempting to mislead and lie to their readers, are you saying that that fits the political philosophy of the conservatives? What I see is that ideology can blind and make intelligent conservatives deny or minimize the positions that they had before: [http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/11/mccain-hannity-climate-change/](http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/11/mccain-hannity-climate-change/) > [@](#): > > While McCain was unwilling to challenge Hannity, he has done it before. During the last presidential campaign, he refuted a global warming denier: > > So why did McCain back down to Hannity? The Times noted yesterday that McCain “once led the global warming debate,” but he “is likely to keep his distance even more over the next six months due to a primary challenge” from conservative former Republican congressman and global warming denier, J.D. Hayworth. “I believe his famous quote is, ‘I don’t see how you can be a conservative and not support cap and trade,’” Hayworth said, adding, “Well, I sure can. And most Arizonans can.” ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/191 "2010-02-23T02:29:39Z")
It’s amazing to see the absolute mountain of evidence simply rejected by those whose political ideologies refuse to let them look at things honestly. And let’s not kid ourselves here - almost nobody who isn’t a political conservative denies global warming. It’s a religion to them, the way creationism is. That means they think it’s OK to lie in order to preserve their worldview. The arguments are even the same as the creationist ones: Evolution / global warming is just a religion! (Perfect example of psychological projection.) There are lots of scientists who believe in creationism / are skeptical of global warming! (I.e., a tiny fraction of a percent, and many of them don’t even study relevant fields.) There’s no peer reviewed articles because the journals are controlled by atheists / liberals. Etc. And that last one is the real issue here. At it’s core, it’s a conspiracy theory, no different from “the Jews control the world’s banks” or “Bush caused 9/11 / deliberately allowed it to happen” or “Evolution is an atheist plot”. This conveniently allows the True Believer to ignore any evidence they like. After all, that evidence comes from _them_, doesn’t it? And if nearly all of a group of people who are in a position to know something disagree with you, that’s just proof of the conspiracy. Note how easily some will _say_, “even scientists can fall into group-think” but _conclude_, “they are suffering from group-think”. This neatly side-steps that messy “claims require evidence” part of forming beliefs. If it _might be possible_ that they’re all wrong, then they’re all wrong. QED. ---
**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 23, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/192 "2010-02-23T02:36:59Z")
Well Blackknight, allow me to blow your mind. I am not a social conservative or a theist/deist. I have no doubt that evolution is a fact (within the scientific meaning of the word–i.e., it’s the best theory we have now, it stands up to the evidence, there’s lots of evidence that it has stood up to, and it has made predictions that turned out to be true). But, at this point, I’m still agnostic on all aspects of AGW. And every day something else is published that pushes me away from the completely pro-AGW position. ---
**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 23, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/193 "2010-02-23T02:39:04Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well Blackknight, allow me to blow your mind. I am not a social conservative or a theist/deist. I have no doubt that evolution is a fact (within the scientific meaning of the word–i.e., it’s the best theory we have now, it stands up to the evidence, there’s lots of evidence that it has stood up to, and it has made predictions that turned out to be true). > > But, at this point, I’m still agnostic on all aspects of AGW. And every day something else is published that pushes me away from the completely pro-AGW position. Ok, now here is clear evidence that you are willing to swallow misleading information, good to keep in mind for future debates. Anyone who has read post #164 and checked the video already knows the misleading and lying bits coming from the Daily Mail and copied by the WSJ. ---
**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 23, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/194 "2010-02-23T02:45:43Z")
And, only by ignoring history (already posted too!) is that one can say that AGW is not the best theory that we have now. “Einstein overturned Newtonian mechanics with a better theory, not with a public relations campaign attacking inertia as a stupid leftist plot.” -from the XKCD message board. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/195 "2010-02-23T02:48:23Z")
> [@Rand Rover](#): > > what would it take for you personally to think there is no longer a consensus among scientists re: AGW? When the _peer-reviewed research_ is no longer overwhelmingly consistent with the AGW hypothesis, and when a _credible alternative hypothesis_ is put forth _that explains the observed data equally well or better_. If you’re imagining that “scientists arguing over details and the implications of specific results” equates to “loss of scientific consensus about the general validity of the hypothesis”, you’re kidding yourself. We’ll **never** reach a point where scientists stop arguing over the details and the implications of specific results; as **jshore** pointed out, that’s just how scientific research works. Scientific knowledge that all the relevant researchers completely understand and agree upon in all its details is scientific knowledge that is no longer being published about. (And in fact, such knowledge would not be publishable in a research journal; editors would reject a paper about it as lacking any original contribution). “Scientific consensus” consists not in total agreement and lack of controversy but in the predominance of the consensus hypothesis as the default current explanation for certain observed phenomena. [This 2004 article in _Science_](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) describes some of the features of the consensus concerning AGW: > [@](#): > > The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). […] > > IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions […] explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)]. > > Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). > > The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9). > > The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. What climate change deniers and skeptics don’t seem to recognize is that _ **ANY SCIENTIST WHO MANAGED TO COME UP WITH A NEW THEORY THAT OUTPERFORMED THE AGW HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE A FUCKING GOD** _. Seriously. S/he would go down in the history books as “the author of the critical breakthrough that revealed a hitherto unsuspected fundamental aspect of climate science.” The article title and journal name in which the successful hypothesis was first published would be household words among researchers. To put it in terms of your favorite metaphor, **Rand Rover** , research scientists masturbate to that kind of daydream. If a researcher or a journal editor had serious cause to think they had such a breakthrough at hand, they would abandon the consensus position in a heartbeat. But they’re not abandoning it. Because they **don’t** in fact see any preferable alternative theories to AGW out there at present. Accepting an imperfect but mainstream hypothesis as the default explanation for lack of anything better may not seem very sexy, but 99.999% of the time it’s what scientists do, and it’s what they’re doing now with AGW. ---
**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 23, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/196 "2010-02-23T03:10:58Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Wait, are you saying the WSJ is wrong about what Phil Jones said, or that Phil Jones is wrong, or what? I almost did not reply to this because by now it should be clear that the Daily Mail and the WSJ misrepresented Phil Jones and by now they are lying\* about what he said. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Also, on a different topic, what would it take for you personally to think there is no longer a consensus among scientists re: AGW? What \*\*Kimstu \*\*said. \*(The original Q&A was already posted several days ago by the BBC, the WSJ making the same mistakes as the Daily Mail shows complete incompetence at least, but I will have to go for lying as they are purposely ignoring the source and the scientists) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/197 "2010-02-23T03:11:11Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Can you point to any mistakes that have made it into the IPCC report that make warming look less severe than it is? I can’t think of any. Have you tried looking for any? [IPCC Underestimated Ocean Temperatures And Sea Level Increases By 50 Percent, Says Study](http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/ipcc_underestimated_ocean_temperatures_and_sea_level_increases_by_50_percent_says_study) > [@](#): > > The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was wrong, say a group of researchers, but not about whether there was global warming. Rather, the report underestimated its effects concerning ocean temperature and associated sea level increases between 1961 and 2003 - by 50 percent. > > The report in the June 19 [2008] edition of Nature compared climate models with observations that show sea levels rose by 1.5 millimeters per year in the period from 1961-2003. That equates to an approximately 2 inch increase in ocean levels in a 42-year span. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/198 "2010-02-23T07:14:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > What climate change deniers and skeptics don’t seem to recognize is that _ **ANY SCIENTIST WHO MANAGED TO COME UP WITH A NEW THEORY THAT OUTPERFORMED THE AGW HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE A FUCKING GOD** _. Actually, as you well know, a number of alternative theories have been proposed. The cosmic ray theory was tested and found wanting. Milankovich cycles have been checked. The sunspot theory is currently under test. This is one of the problems with the CO2 theory: we lack the ability to test it. We just have to take it on faith. That’s not good science. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/199 "2010-02-23T07:53:53Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Actually, as you well know, a number of alternative theories have been proposed. The cosmic ray theory was tested and found wanting. Milankovich cycles have been checked. The sunspot theory is currently under test. Yes, I know that alternative theories have been proposed. However, none of them so far has outperformed the AGW hypothesis in explaining observed data on global temperature. > [@Quartz](#): > > This is one of the problems with the CO2 theory: we lack the ability to test it. We just have to take it on faith. That’s not good science. Nonsense. Provisionally accepting a hypothesis _because it is currently the best explanation we have for the observed data_ is not the same thing as “taking it on faith”. Nor is the AGW hypothesis “untestable”, any more than theories about galaxy formation in the early universe, or continental drift, or the evolution of early hominids on earth are “untestable”. Sure, we can’t test them by running repeated controlled experiments the way we do in many lab sciences, but we can still test their predictions against the data that we collect. I’m not trying to downplay any of the uncertainties or unanswered questions in the AGW hypothesis; it’s still a very incomplete theory and may yet have to be drastically modified or even (less probably, but not inconceivably) rejected altogether in favor of a substantially different hypothesis. In the meantime, though, it amounts to willful ignorance to call the AGW hypothesis “not good science”. On the contrary, AGW is not only a perfectly legitimate scientific hypothesis but currently the best scientific hypothesis available to describe current climate trends. It would be silly to try to pretend that it’s thoroughly established or infallible, but it’s even sillier to try to pretend that it somehow shouldn’t be accepted by researchers as a reasonable working hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/200 "2010-02-23T08:26:12Z")
Holy shit that \*Nature \*article is damning. > [@](#): > > …many governments nominated only authors who were aligned with stated policy. Indeed, the selections for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented a disturbing homogeneity of thought regarding humans and climate. > > Selected lead authors have the last word in the review cycle and so control the message, often ignoring or marginalizing dissenting comments. ‘Consensus’ and manufactured-confidence ensued. The recent leaking of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, put on display the unsavoury cycle of marginalizing different viewpoints. Now several errors of overstatement, such as that of the melting rate of the Himalayan glaciers, have been exposed. > > Unfortunately, prestigious media, including Nature, became cheerleaders for these official reports, followed then by governments trying to enact policies that drastically reduced emissions to ‘stop global warming’ while increasing energy costs. Outright statements that: 1. The IPCC is a victim of group-think resulting from government engineering 2. That consensus is manufactured and not real. 3. That dissenting views on climate change were marginalised 4)That media have become cheerleaders for the non-sceince that his mess produced. What I find most intriguing is that AGW dupes who trumpeted every Nature opinion piece on the strengths of the IPCC and global warming have blithely ignored these minor criticisms. Even _Nature \* is declaring that the IPCC structure is so hideously flawed that any consensus is engineered by goverment stooges and any dissenting views are marginalised. Isn’t it about time the AGW cheerleaders started admitting that maybe there is something to such claims. To stop the ad hominems that everybody who voices such opinions is a “denier”? I think it’s especially rich watching all the patsies condemning_\* Rand Rover\*\* as a paranoid “denialist” for making statements that are pretty much in line with the statements made in Nature. To put the Nature article into the vernacular, the facts are fucked. The IPCC is a cabal of self serving scientists patting itself on its own back in order to allow the goverments that appointed them to enact legislation aligned with govt policy. But when RR makes those asame statemnts he’s a crazy fucking conspiracy theorist. Shit, I’m no fan of RR, but to say that someone is paranoid for agreeing with an article published in a journal as prestigious as Nature is a little much, even by the high standards of the AGW cheerleaders we usually get in these “debates”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=11)