# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 11
**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, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/201 "2010-02-23T09:03:29Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Holy shit that Nature article is damning. :rolleyes: [That _Nature_ “article”](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/463730a.html) is actually an op-ed piece expressing personal opinions of five individual climatologists on suggested approaches for modifying the IPCC. > [@Blake](#): > > 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. You are, either mistakenly or dishonestly, characterizing the personal opinions of one scientist in an op-ed as something that “_Nature_ is declaring”. I notice that you cherry-picked the most strongly negative comments from one of the five commentators and omitted other comments such as the following: > [@](#): > > The assessments published by the IPCC have firmly elevated anthropogenic climate change to one of the major international political issues of our time. […] > > The basis of the IPCC is the voluntary contributions of thousands of dedicated scientists from all over the world. The Principles Governing IPCC Work (IPCC, 1998) provide a clear framework for an open, transparent and robust process. This bottom-up endeavour is a unique model of providing scientific information, mainly from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, for decision-making on a challenging problem. It has worked extremely successfully for the past 21 years. […] > > The IPCC has served as an honest broker in the past and will do so, hopefully, in the future. […] > > In this field of different and divergent forces, confusion may arise. An honest broker therefore is an asset. From my perspective, the IPCC has fulfilled this role with remarkable rigour and integrity. Well, what do you know. Even _Nature_ is declaring that the IPCC has worked extremely successfully for the past 21 years and operates based on an open, transparent and robust process. Isn’t it about time that AGW deniers started admitting that there is something to such claims? > [@Blake](#): > > 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, Did you really not notice that this so-called _Nature_ “article” is an op-ed piece in which the opinions you quoted from one commentator are a minority viewpoint not expressed by all the other commentators? Or did you just figure that you could probably get away with some denier bullshit by misrepresenting the content of this op-ed as an “article published in a journal as prestigious as _Nature_”? ---
**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, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/202 "2010-02-23T09:04:58Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 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”. But you’re not **provisionally** accepting it. You’re accepting it. That’s the key difference. > [@](#): > > 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”. Actually, continental drift is visible. > [@](#): > > 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. Tell that to those who spout with so much certainty. > [@](#): > > 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. I beg to differ. A lot of good science has been done in pursuit of the CO2 theory of AGW, but the theory itself is, as yet, not good science. See the difference? > [@](#): > > but it’s even sillier to try to pretend that it somehow shouldn’t be accepted by researchers as a reasonable working hypothesis. Actually it’s sheer stupidity **for a researcher** to accept it as such. A researcher should be impartial. Not disinterested, though. If a researcher starts by saying that they think the CO2 theory is such then they’ve tainted their result. It is, as you say, a hypothesis. To me, a layman, it is indeed a reasonable working hypothesis, but researchers should step back. ---
**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, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/203 "2010-02-23T09:22:52Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > But you’re not provisionally accepting it. You’re accepting it. That’s the key difference. No. I’m saying that so far, the AGW hypothesis is the best available explanation of the observed data. If a better hypothesis comes along, that hypothesis should replace AGW as the mainstream working hypothesis for climate science. That’s what I mean by “provisional” acceptance. AGW is, for lack of a better hypothesis, the default theory, _provided_ a better theory doesn’t come along. > [@Quartz](#): > > Actually, continental drift is visible. But historical continental drift from earlier ages isn’t; it’s merely inferred from geological records, the same way we infer earlier climate trends from palaeoclimate data. > [@Quartz](#): > > Tell that to those who spout with so much certainty. (shrug) I’ll tell it to anybody. Just because there are some foolish people who overstate the certainty of the AGW hypothesis doesn’t justify other foolish people in overstating its uncertainty. > [@Quartz](#): > > I beg to differ. A lot of good science has been done in pursuit of the CO2 theory of AGW, but the theory itself is, as yet, not good science. See the difference? Nonsense. AGW may be an uncertain and still far-from-confirmed hypothesis, but there’s nothing about that that makes it “bad science”. > [@Quartz](#): > > Actually it’s sheer stupidity for a researcher to accept it as such. A researcher should be impartial. Not disinterested, though. If a researcher starts by saying that they think the CO2 theory is such then they’ve tainted their result. There’s nothing stupid or biased about a researcher accepting as a working hypothesis the current best hypothesis in his/her field. Hell, that’s the way researchers do research: they consider the predictions and implications of the scientific model that they’re using as their working hypothesis, and then they test them against observed data. You are making strange claims about scientific methodology that I don’t think most actual scientific researchers would agree with or even understand. Researchers shouldn’t provisionally accept the current best theory as their working hypothesis? WTF? That simply makes no sense. Sure, they shouldn’t make up their minds in advance about what the correct theory is, but that’s not what “accept as a working hypothesis” means. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/204 "2010-02-23T11:32:51Z")
[Debunking Lomborg, the Climate-Change Skeptic](http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942)? And just for the hell of it, a book has come out debunking a climate change skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg. Because apparently he likes to lie. A lot. ---
**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, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/205 "2010-02-23T11:55:17Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > [http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942](http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942)? > And just for the hell of it, a book has come out debunking a climate change skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg. That’s funny, because he’s a believer, not a skeptic. ---
**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, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/206 "2010-02-23T13:38:16Z")
And the article isn’t quite the debunking you suggest. It’s apparent that there are severe short-comings, though. Not having read either book, I can’t comment further. ---
**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, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/207 "2010-02-23T13:55:42Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > That’s funny, because he’s a believer, not a skeptic. Of the science yes, but he has a knack of minimizing the effects of AGW, and the way how he misrepresents the sources he used in his attempts to minimize the effects looks like something done by the Daily Mail and the WSJ. As for the canards that we can not test or that there is no evidence for the accepted theories: > **[Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm)** > > \Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. > [@](#): > > When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=10)