# 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:** 2
**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, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/21 "2010-02-15T23:51:30Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Lessee..Prof. Jones now admits that: > -he faked the data, and cannot find his notes Lessee, what is really the context? [http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.71.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.71.html) > [@](#): > > Jones says that approaching Wang for the Chinese data seemed sensible at the time. “I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn’t routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services,” says Jones, who asserts that standards for data collection have changed considerably in the past twenty years. He now acknowledges that “the stations probably did move”, and that the subsequent loss of the data was sloppy. “It’s not acceptable,” says Jones. “[It’s] not best practice.” > > Jones says that he did not know that the weather stations’ locations were questionable when they were included in the paper, but as the study’s lead author he acknowledges his responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data. So will he submit a correction to Nature? “I will give that some thought. It’s worthy of consideration,” he says. > > **“The science still holds up” though, he adds. A follow-up study2 verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. “They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion,”** says Jones of his critics. > [@ralph124c](#): > > -there has been (apparently) no warming since 1995 > **[RealClimate: Daily Mangle](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/)** > > RealClimate: Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995". The title itself is a distortion of what... > [@](#): > > Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″. > > The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record. > > The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former “has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’”. > [@ralph124c](#): > > -the “Medieval Warm Period” was a global phenomenon As the latest reconstructions showed, there is lots of doubt that that was the case. [http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.71.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.71.html) > [@](#): > > **Jones says that he is unconvinced that the MWP was a global phenomenon** , but categorically denies that he has tried to downplay it. “A lot of people have this view that there was a MWP and then a little ice age,” he says. “It might not be the case.” > > “We need more reconstructions from different parts of the world to reproduce a better history of the past thousand years”. Jones challenges his critics to help with those efforts. “Why don’t they do their own reconstructions?” he asks. “The work that’s been published has been through the peer-review process; if they want to criticize that they should write their own papers.” > [@ralph124c](#): > > What part of “fraud” isn’t clear here? What it is clear is that you have no clue nor evidence to say that there was fraud. However, there is evidence of fraudulent reporting by the British media. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/22 "2010-02-16T00:04:17Z")
Pretty much all of it, but finally, the relevance. Even if what you say is true, and it makes better blank verse than it does an argument, its not as important now as it used to be. The entire case for AGW does not rest upon these slender shoulders, Its important only in that it was one of the first to set forward serious scientific argument, based on data. But the consensus that has formed around AGW is not based solely on work done quite some time ago, there is more. Now, those studies might not have been made without the input of Jones and Co. but they were, and they add up to a pretty sturdy case, IMHO. Put it this way. Suppose tomorrow we find the long suppressed confession of Charles Darwin that he made it all up, he never went to the Galapagoes, and didn’t know a finch from a nuthatch. It was all product of a wicked anti-reiligious crusade on his part, it was all lies, front to back. There are those amongst us who would cry “Hossanah and hallellujah! Evolution is exposed as a lie! End of discussion, take those books out of the library, victory is ours!” But no. Darwin’s work has been expanded, verified and underscored. Such work might not have been done if it were not for Darwin’s courage and genius, may the Goddess reward him with Tenure Eternal. So now, if it were exposed as a fraud, it would be only an historical curiousity, the effect on the actual science of evolution would be negligible. Such is the case here. The eagerness of some to assert that the entire edifice of AGW is blasted to shreds reeks of desperation, the desperation that arises from intellectual poverty and a need to divorce the debate from facts and decide the question on the more agreeable basis of suggestion and innuendo. ---
**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 16, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/23 "2010-02-16T00:10:53Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. No, it’s easy. A conservative once told a lie. Therefore, everything any conservative ever said can be dismissed as a lie. ---
**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 16, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/24 "2010-02-16T00:50:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Consensus: buy a dictionary and look it up. What? You act like “the consensus amoing genuine scientists” is some observable phenomonon, like the number of red or blue flowers in a field. In fact, it is an extremely subjective exercise. After determining which scientists are “genuine,” one must match up their answers on man complicated questions without binary answers. ---
**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 16, 2010, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/25 "2010-02-16T00:54:27Z")
Luci, the need for some to hand wave away all criticism also smacks of desperation. Those with a penchant for increasing state power don’t wanna see their newest and largest avenue for such closed down for repairs. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/26 "2010-02-16T00:56:21Z")
Is everyone missing the point here of the OP? I don’t believe that ‘lost their credibility?’ has to do with whether or not scientists and climatologists feel that the theory or those advocating it have lost their cred, but whether the PUBLIC feels they have. After all, the public are really the ones being asked to make sacrifices and foot the bill. [QUOTE=Little Nemo] 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. [/QUOTE] No? I think you are quite wrong about this. Whether or not GW/AGW theory is sound, if the public’s perception changes enough and the theory goes out of favor then several Bad Things™ are likely to happen…the most obvious being that funding is likely to dry up, as is the willingness of the public to make any kind of substantial changes or sacrifices. Whether the credibility of the theory and those advocating it remain rock solid among the vertical experts in the field (as well as among a broader range of related and unrelated scientists) is irrelevant if their credibility is shot with the public. As to the answer, I have no idea if the public’s perceptions on this have changed substantially in the past few years, or whether they are starting to seriously question the credibility. And that just goes for American’s…even less idea what the citizens in other countries are thinking about this. We’ve been literally bombarded for years now by the chicken little crowd who have been exaggerating how bad it MIGHT be (at least here in the US) that I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some kind of backlash over all this smoke, whether there turns out to be a fire or not. What I do think, though, is that people who think that the public’s perceptions on this don’t matter and that it’s only up to the ‘experts’ are going to be in for a rude awakening sometime fairly soon if things are allowed to continue to slip. Look at the frigging 9/11 movement and how much traction those loonies have gotten in the last few years, despite overwhelming ‘expert’ opinion to the contrary of things like Loose Change. It’s taken years for people to finally wake up and start producing shows for popular consumption debunking these guys. Personally (FWIW and all that) I think what the GW/AGW folks need to do is to squash the chicken little faction among you (including those in Hollywood), and then to set about producing reasoned, measured and accurate shows for popular consumption similar to the 9/11 debunking shows (maybe get the Mythbusters to do a 2 hour episode…stuff like that). And to keep in mind that this actually IS a Democracy, and that the citizens are the ones who have to pony up the bucks to keep the research flowing, as well as the ones who will ultimately have to make the sacrifices that may be necessary to accomplish a reversal of the problem. -XT ---
**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 16, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/27 "2010-02-16T00:56:58Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > What? You act like “the consensus amoing genuine scientists” is some observable phenomonon, like the number of red or blue flowers in a field. In fact, it is an extremely subjective exercise. After determining which scientists are “genuine,” one must match up their answers on man complicated questions without binary answers. Not quite, can you be the one to point at the scientific organization(s) that reports that AGW is a fraud or that there is no good evidence for it? Take your time. ---
**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 16, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/28 "2010-02-16T00:59:26Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Luci, the need for some to hand wave away all criticism also smacks of desperation. Those with a penchant for increasing state power don’t wanna see their newest and largest avenue for such closed down for repairs. As denier media sucks at citations, I would say your say so here is baseless. ---
**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 16, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/29 "2010-02-16T01:16:01Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Is everyone missing the point here of the OP? I don’t believe that ‘lost their credibility?’ has to do with whether or not scientists and climatologists feel that the theory or those advocating it have lost their cred, but whether the PUBLIC feels they have. After all, the public are really the ones being asked to make sacrifices and foot the bill. As it was pointed out, it is not ok because the evidence points out to fraudulent reporting leading to that public opinion. Yeah, too bad not everyone checks what the scientists actually said, but if we know what has taken place the solution is clear: we have to demand better from the sources we trust (this goes specially for the conservatives) and spread the truth. > [@xtisme](#): > > No? I think you are quite wrong about this. Whether or not GW/AGW theory is sound, if the public’s perception changes enough and the theory goes out of favor then several Bad Things™ are likely to happen…the most obvious being that funding is likely to dry up, as is the willingness of the public to make any kind of substantial changes or sacrifices. Whether the credibility of the theory and those advocating it remain rock solid among the vertical experts in the field (as well as among a broader range of related and unrelated scientists) is irrelevant if their credibility is shot with the public. As the recent India case showed, the leaders are still in favor of the science. One should not forget that worse public opinion levels are found with creationism in the USA and yet they continue to lose ground and research funding for biology continues. > [@xtisme](#): > > As to the answer, I have no idea if the public’s perceptions on this have changed substantially in the past few years, or whether they are starting to seriously question the credibility. And that just goes for American’s…even less idea what the citizens in other countries are thinking about this. We’ve been literally bombarded for years now by the chicken little crowd who have been exaggerating how bad it MIGHT be (at least here in the US) that I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some kind of backlash over all this smoke, whether there turns out to be a fire or not. What I do think, though, is that people who think that the public’s perceptions on this don’t matter and that it’s only up to the ‘experts’ are going to be in for a rude awakening sometime fairly soon if things are allowed to continue to slip. Look at the frigging 9/11 movement and how much traction those loonies have gotten in the last few years, despite overwhelming ‘expert’ opinion to the contrary of things like Loose Change. It’s taken years for people to finally wake up and start producing shows for popular consumption debunking these guys. > > Personally (FWIW and all that) I think what the GW/AGW folks need to do is to squash the chicken little faction among you (including those in Hollywood), and then to set about producing reasoned, measured and accurate shows for popular consumption similar to the 9/11 debunking shows (maybe get the Mythbusters to do a 2 hour episode…stuff like that). And to keep in mind that this actually IS a Democracy, and that the citizens are the ones who have to pony up the bucks to keep the research flowing, as well as the ones who will ultimately have to make the sacrifices that may be necessary to accomplish a reversal of the problem. > > -XT Funny thing, one of my favorite science reporters criticized also Al Gore in the past for his exaggerations (However he had to concede most of the science in An Inconvenient truth was correct) And I have posted his reports before, but many continue to ignore that what he says about the misleading denier media is valid. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7nnVQ2fROOg/hqdefault.jpg "6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg) The latest one: [http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/0/xvMmPtEt8dc](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/0/xvMmPtEt8dc) > [@](#): > > 1. Climate Change – Has the Earth been cooling? > > This video also looks at whether other planets are also warming, and an Internet myth that NASA is now attributing warming to the sun. In this video I examine the importance of sources – tracking information back to a source and making sure the source is credible. My sources are cited in the video, but I’ll also post them here. Sources are also cited throughout my climate change series. These videos are not a personal opinion or a theory of my own; I’m not a climate scientist or a researcher and I have no qualifications to do anything other than report on what real climate scientists have discovered through their research. So there’s no point in disagreeing with me. If you dislike their conclusions, take it up with the researchers I cite. If I’ve made a mistake in reporting their conclusions, please point out the mistake and I will happily correct it. If you think you know better than the experts, write a paper and have it published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. (Inhofe appears once again as the most incompetent US senator.) ---
**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:** [February 16, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/30 "2010-02-16T01:25:13Z")
> [@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. What _is_ amazing is that people intelligent enough to post at SDMB respond to the level of debate shrillness, rather than substantive matters. There are intelligent ways to argue against AGW; focusing on a weakest-link scientist (or rather a FoxNews-level interpretation of him) is _not_ one of them. If a position could be discredited based on dishonesty of _some_ of its supporters, the anti-AGW position would be the one to eliminate. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/31 "2010-02-16T01:37:11Z")
Give it up, **GIGO** , he’s on to us! Our every waking moment is devoted to our fervent desire to increase state power by whatever means necessary. Our secret thoughts are transparent to a mind like his, he knows what evil lurks. Just too smart for us, really, that’s all there is to it. Even as I type, he is no doubt expectent of your imminent surrender and abject apology. So he’s waiting. For **GIGO**. ---
**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 16, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/32 "2010-02-16T01:55:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Give it up, **GIGO** , he’s on to us! Our every waking moment is devoted to our fervent desire to increase state power by whatever means necessary. Finally, he admits it! But seriously, you ever wonder why a fiscal liberal’s solution to every problem is a new government program? I didn’t think you did, luci. ---
**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 16, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/33 "2010-02-16T01:58:00Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Finally, he admits it! > > But seriously, you ever wonder why a fiscal liberal’s solution to every problem is a new government program? I didn’t think you did, luci. I love the smell of whooshing in the night! 🙂 But on the serious note, I see that you still have trouble finding the scientific organizations that report that AGW is a fraud. ---
**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 16, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/34 "2010-02-16T02:04:22Z")
Um, gigo, I think you whooshed your ownbadself. Also, you are commiting the fallacy of “false dichotomy” by asking me to find a scientific organization saying AGW is a fraud. The issue is not “is a fraud” versus “is not a fraud.” It’s much more complicated and granular than that. Answering the three main questions about AGW involves gathering and interpreting tons of data. And there has been lots of evidence lately that lots of fingers have been put on lots of scales along the way. ---
**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 16, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/35 "2010-02-16T02:21:03Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Um, gigo, I think you whooshed your ownbadself. Why do you think I put the smilie there also? > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Also, you are commiting the fallacy of “false dichotomy” by asking me to find a scientific organization saying AGW is a fraud. The issue is not “is a fraud” versus “is not a fraud.” It’s much more complicated and granular than that. Answering the three main questions about AGW involves gathering and interpreting tons of data. And there has been lots of evidence lately that lots of fingers have been put on lots of scales along the way. Nope, what you said here is also without base. You have not paid any attention to the evidence that showed how fraudulent the reporters were regarding the evidence of “data alteration”. As your “false dichotomy” accusation, it is just that a silly accusation, the fact is that there are several answers, but you are choosing not to investigate to see how far of base you are on not being a consensus regarding this issue. I also gave the choice of finding scientific organizations that just say that there was no good evidence. ---
**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 16, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/36 "2010-02-16T02:26:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As your “false dichotomy” accusation, it is just that a silly accusation, the fact is that there are several answers, but you are choosing not to investigate to see how far of base you are on not being a consensus regarding this issue. Like I said, desperation. “There is TOO a consensus, there is TOO!!! Now please hand me your money so we can save humanity from destruction.” Meh. ---
**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 16, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/37 "2010-02-16T03:02:13Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Like I said, desperation. “There is TOO a consensus, there is TOO!!! Now please hand me your money so we can save humanity from destruction.” Meh. Meh, on the contrary, the desperation is coming from the misleading side you are supporting. > **[Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause](https://www.ucs.org/resources/global-warming-happening-and-humans-are-primary-cause)** > > The evidence is overwhelming. Earth is warming fast, and the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate. > [@](#): > > Scientific Consensus on Global Warming > > In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus. For more statements from scientific organizations: > **[Scientific consensus on climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)** > > There is scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,: 8 : 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,: 10–11  with a significant supporting ro Nearl... And it includes one item that I gave you a chance to find to demonstrate to us if you actually knew the issue well: > [@](#): > > Statements by dissenting organizations > > With the release of the revised statement[79] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][80] Who is really desperate or ignorant? I don’t think the evidence is against 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:** [February 16, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/38 "2010-02-16T03:15:44Z")
For those that have the time (One hour video), check the report of Naomi Oreskes on The American Denial of Global Warming. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/2T4UF_Rmlio/hqdefault.jpg "The American Denial of Global Warming - Perspectives on Ocean Science") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio) Even if one can grant that now most people are losing trust on the science, one can not ignore that the reason is not because of what the scientists are doing, but because of what the denier media and sources are doing. They are completely losing the battle in science and academia, the desperation is clear from the deniers, now it is in the court of public opinion where they are aiming their weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/39 "2010-02-16T03:16:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, it’s easy. A conservative once told a lie. Therefore, everything any conservative ever said can be dismissed as a lie. I’ve spent my entire life listening to conservatives tell me that actions to preserve the environment would destroy the United States. Clean water, clean air, changing the propellant in spray cans, controlling the emissions that cause acid rain - all of those would both not solve the problem and would destroy the economy. They’ve been wrong, every single time. Every single time, wrong. You’ll pardon me, I hope, if I’m skeptical about what conservatives tell me about global warming. ---
**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 16, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/40 "2010-02-16T03:21:23Z")
I’ve spent my entire life listening to fiscal liberals tell me about how we need to increaes the power fo the government to solve one problem or another. So you’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical of a problem when the solution is to drastically and irreversably increase the power of the government. Or, in other words, two can play your reindeer games, Frank. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=3)