# 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:** 8
**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 17, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/141 "2010-02-17T15:59:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Denier media is still saying that scientists and academics are whitewashing the “scandal”. It’s plain as a pikestaff that there’s no whitewash. However, I do not believe that sufficient measures are being taken to defend scientific integrity. The Indian scientist should resign, and the whole peer review process itself needs some scrutiny. Scientists need to be more open with their data. Not only what their data is, but why it was chosen or excluded. ---
**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 17, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/142 "2010-02-17T16:47:45Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > It’s plain as a pikestaff that there’s no whitewash. However, I do not believe that sufficient measures are being taken to defend scientific integrity. The Indian scientist should resign, and the whole peer review process itself needs some scrutiny. Scientists need to be more open with their data. Not only what their data is, but why it was chosen or excluded. I disagree, one of the main reasons I dislike the former head of the CRU is that he gave the deniers a victory by removing himself from being the head. Denier media said that he had left CRU and he resigned in disgrace. That was not the whole truth. And once again, the “not releasing data” canard is not being accurate or telling the whole truth. The reason why demanding the resignation of the Indian scientist is silly was mentioned already, there is a ridiculous lack of perceptive regarding the seriousness of the error. > **[Mr. Pachauri Is Not Pleased.](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/mr-pachauri-is-not-pleased.html)** > > In an interview with Science published January 29, Rajendra Pachauri speaking from New Dehli made a few subtle points Q: A statement from TE... > [@](#): > > ``` > Q: You put up a brave face, but some in the scientific community feel let down. They say that you are carrying too much baggage, that it's time for you to move on. > > R.K.P.: I certainly have no intention to quit. I will continue as the chairman of the IPCC till I have completed the fifth assessment report. > > Q: Are you becoming a thorn in the side of vested interests—a thorn they wish to eliminate? > > R.K.P.: No question about that. But I have no intentions of backing off. I am not going to tailor the truth to suit the vested interests of those who would like to continue with business as usual. > > ``` > > and he had a few comments on glaciers > > ``` > Q: The big issue dogging IPCC this winter is the inclusion of a prediction in the fourth assessment that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. IPCC has offered regret—but not an apology. > > R.K.P.: We have made a mistake and we have admitted that. Our job is essentially to bring the science into our assessments from the best sources that exist. Look at the extent of the glaciology work that has been done in this country. It is pathetic. I mean, that is really where we need to come up with an apology. > > Q: In a 20 January statement, IPCC still says that India's glaciers are melting away. Isn't that a tall claim? > > R.K.P.: Our glaciers are under the same influences, the same temperature changes as other glaciers in the world. So you know we cannot possibly assume if all the other glaciers are melting, that for some reason we are insulated from those influences. The lay public ... can see with their eyes what is happening to our glaciers. > > ``` ---
**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 17, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/143 "2010-02-17T18:31:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reason why demanding the resignation of the Indian scientist is silly was mentioned already, there is a ridiculous lack of perceptive regarding the seriousness of the error. Perspective, not perceptive. Silly spell checker.. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/144 "2010-02-19T02:52:59Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And as I said (three or four times now): Why do you believe that the business professional “shorting coastline real estate” is a better reason to take AGW seriously than the actual climate scientist recommending that we take AGW seriously? Do you believe that fund managers and the like are somehow immune to the “Great Cause psychology” that you claim is causing concern about AGW? (Sorry for the late bump; a couple long days) It’s not that I think business folk are a better arbiter than scientists in the debate over AGW. They have a poor history, including betting on tulips as The Next Big Thing. I simply raised that by way of suggesting that if AGW–or any GW, for that matter–can be accurately predicted, there’s money to be made off it, so I’ll be impressed when the general “belief” (which is easy to profess) translates to placing real financial bets. Until I see that I’ll be skeptical that there is much more than lip service for a Great Cause. Not a particularly critical point. Shortly after making an earlier post I was reading the Wall Street Journal from the 17th, and [this](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704804204575069723794293584.html) article seemed apropos to the OP’s question to me. Thought I’d step back in and link to it. The title is “Controversies Create Opening for Critics”. The gist of the article is that some of the “current controversies” are creating opportunity for a “fresh airing” of some AGW criticisms (such as, for instance, MIT’s Professor Lindzen’s assertion that IPCC modeling overstates CO2 sensitivity by a factor of 5). ---
**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 19, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/145 "2010-02-19T03:14:24Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Shortly after making an earlier post I was reading the Wall Street Journal from the 17th, and [this](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704804204575069723794293584.html) article seemed apropos to the OP’s question to me. Thought I’d step back in and link to it. The title is “Controversies Create Opening for Critics”. The gist of the article is that some of the “current controversies” are creating opportunity for a “fresh airing” of some AGW criticisms (such as, for instance, MIT’s Professor Lindzen’s assertion that IPCC modeling overstates CO2 sensitivity by a factor of 5). > **[RealClimate: Lindzen and Choi Unraveled](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/)** > > RealClimate: Lindzen and Choi, Trenberth Fasullo, O'Dell and Wang, tropical ocean temperatures, TOA radiative fluxes, climate sensitivity > [@](#): > > A recent paper by Lindzen and Choi in GRL (2009) (LC09) purported to demonstrate that climate had a strong negative feedback and that climate models are quite wrong in their relationships between changes in surface temperature and corresponding changes in outgoing radiation escaping to space. This publication has been subject to a considerable amount of hype, for instance apparently “[LC09] has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.” and “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate”. Not surprisingly, LC09 has also been highly publicized in various contrarian circles. > > Our initial reading of their article had us independently asking, how we could have missed such explicit evidence of the cloud feedback as shown in LC09? Why would such a significant finding have gone undiscovered when these feedbacks are widely studied and recognised as central to the projections of climate change? We discovered these common concerns at a meeting last year and then teamed up to address these questions. > > With the hype surrounding the manuscript, one would think that the article provides a sound, rock solid basis for a reduced climate sensitivity. However, our examination of the study’s methods demonstrates that this is not the case. In an article in press (Trenberth et al. 2010 (sub. requ.), hereafter TFOW), we show that LC09 is gravely flawed and its results are wrong on multiple fronts. “fresh airing” ? As has been my experience with many “this means AGW was debunked” say so’s of the past they are a little bit more than reheated baloney. Other points blame the sun and Milankovich cycle, even more older chest nuts. [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/25/\_Sf\_UIQYc20](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/25/_Sf_UIQYc20) [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/21/hWJeqgG3Tl8](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/21/hWJeqgG3Tl8) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/146 "2010-02-19T03:14:39Z")
The problem is one of exaggeration. Nothing has yet been proven, but setting that aside, even if it were, the structure of AGW studies does not rest upon a single set of data and modeling, a great deal of work has been done _inspired_ by the earlier work, but not _dependent_ upon it. A “fresh airing” of this stale argument will have no impact upon later, confirming work. Like my earlier analogy: if we found out tomorrow that Charles Darwin made it all up, it wouldn’t hardly matter, the truth of evolutionary theory does depend upon the credibility of Darwin. ---
**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 19, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/147 "2010-02-19T03:37:29Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Shortly after making an earlier post I was reading the Wall Street Journal from the 17th, and [this](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704804204575069723794293584.html) article Besides the misleading examples mentioned before, the WSJ opinion pieces had nothing to envy from the fraudulent British reporters from the Telegraph and the Daily Mail, problem is that that article is not from the opinion pages, just a few years ago there was good evidence that the WSJ news were not driven by opinion: > **[RealClimate: The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus El Wall...](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/the-wall-street-journal-vs-the-consensus-of-the-scientific-community/)** > > RealClimate: We are disappointed that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has chosen to yet again distort the science behind human-caused climate change and global warming in their recent editorial "Kyoto By Degrees" (6/21/05) (subscription required). Last... > [@](#): > > The irony here could not be more striking, for if the editors of the WSJ were familiar with the news reported by the WSJ, they surely should have been aware that the Soon\* and Baliunas study was discredited on the pages of the Wall Street Journal itself. Indeed, as described in that previous WSJ article, a team of leading climate researchers detailed the numerous fundamental flaws in the Soon and Baliunas paper in in the American Geophysical Union journal “Eos“. This matter has been discussed elsewhere at great length, including previously on RealClimate both here and here (see “Myth #2″). \*Yes, that is the same Willie Soon the Wall Street Journal used in the latest article. The problem here is seeing how twisted they had to get to offer “balance” by reheating even already flawed points, and this is not an opinion piece. Now I’m beginning to think that Rupert Murdoch is slowly turning the news part of the Wall Street Journal into the worthless opinion pieces of that same paper. ---
**Author:** ![Oregon\_sunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/50afbb/32.png) [@Oregon\_sunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oregon_sunshine)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/148 "2010-02-20T00:00:54Z")
OK, I didn’t read the whole thread (first page or so, sorry guys) but as it’s about global warming: I’ve been dying to ask SDMB folks, (since I’m a non-scientist) can some scientific type please look at this graph and tell me why we are not poised for another round of global cooling in the near (relatively speaking) future? It’s a long-term temperature/CO2 graph from data taken from ice cores: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png) Please note: I do not have a “dog in this fight” as they say, nor do I espouse one side of the debate or the other. No agenda at all. I just saw this graph long ago and have wondered ever since… From the trends on the graph, it seems clear that earth’s temps are heading downward sometime in the next thousand years or so, and that CO2 levels have been naturally rising and are about to peak or fall…? (My education is in the arts; I do understand graphs, but maybe there is some other explanation that would show me that these long-term trends are about to radically change??) ---
**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 20, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/149 "2010-02-20T00:47:18Z")
> [@Oregon\_sunshine](#): > > OK, I didn’t read the whole thread (first page or so, sorry guys) but as it’s about global warming: I’ve been dying to ask SDMB folks, (since I’m a non-scientist) can some scientific type please look at this graph and tell me why we are not poised for another round of global cooling in the near (relatively speaking) future? It’s a long-term temperature/CO2 graph from data taken from ice cores: > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png) > > Please note: I do not have a “dog in this fight” as they say, nor do I espouse one side of the debate or the other. No agenda at all. I just saw this graph long ago and have wondered ever since… From the trends on the graph, it seems clear that earth’s temps are heading downward sometime in the next thousand years or so, and that CO2 levels have been naturally rising and are about to peak or fall…? (My education is in the arts; I do understand graphs, but maybe there is some other explanation that would show me that these long-term trends are about to radically change??) > **[RealClimate: 650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations 650 000 années de...](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/)** > > RealClimate: The latest results from the EPICA core in Antarctica have just been published this week in Science (Siegenthaler et al. and Spahni et al.). This ice core extended the record of Antarctic climate back to maybe 800,000 years, and the first... > [@](#): > > First of all, the results demonstrate clearly that the relationship between climate and CO2 that had been deduced from the Vostok core appears remarkably robust. This is despite a significant change in the patterns of glacial-interglacial changes prior to 400,000 years ago. The ‘EPICA challenge’ was laid down a few months ago for people working on carbon cycle models to predict whether this would be the case, and mostly the predictions were right on the mark. (Who says climate predictions can’t be verified?). It should also go almost without saying that lingering doubts about the reproducibility of the ice core gas records should now be completely dispelled. That a number of different labs, looking at ice from different locations, extracted with different methods all give very similar answers, is a powerful indication that what they are measuring is real. Where there are problems (for instance in N2O in very dusty ice), those problems are clearly found and that data discarded. What the data did was to confirm and allow us to make more robust simulations. However, it is not just simulations, but satellite data and direct measurements that show that the earth is warming still, and as the resident climatologist of RealClimate reports in a comment: > [@](#): > > There is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature (and Milankovitch forcing). Given the lag in CO2/CH4 to Milankovitch and temperature it is clear that climate influences CO2 and CH4 levels. Given separate studies in how cold the planet was at the peak of the last ice age given those values of GHGs and ice sheets etc. it is clear that GHG forcing is roughly reponsible for half of the glacial cooling (e.g. Lorius et al, 1990). Thus we have a classic feedback - climate influences GHGs (through ocean + biosphere interactions), and GHGs in turn influence climate (through the atmospheric greenhouse effect). If, given the Milankovitch forcing and how warm it was, carbon cycle models can correctly estimate how much CO2 was in the atmosphere, prior to the actual results being released, it implies the carbon cycle models have some skill at relating the three effects. **And finally, since the atmosphere doesn’t care whether CO2 is man made or not, and given that [Milankovitch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) forcing is small for the next few centuries, the same physics will likely work for the future as well.** -gavin What it tell us is that we should be careful not to fall for what some deniers are telling us, that global warming is preventing an Ice age, the best estimates show that a new ice age is coming, but in about 22,000 years. Many researchers do not think we could or should wait that long. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/150 "2010-02-20T01:52:43Z")
> [@Oregon sunshine](#): > > can some scientific type please look at this graph and tell me why we are not poised for another round of global cooling in the near (relatively speaking) future? It’s a long-term temperature/CO2 graph from data taken from ice cores: > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png) > > Please note: I do not have a “dog in this fight” as they say, nor do I espouse one side of the debate or the other. No agenda at all. I just saw this graph long ago and have wondered ever since… From the trends on the graph, it seems clear that earth’s temps are heading downward sometime in the next thousand years or so, and that CO2 levels have been naturally rising and are about to peak or fall…? Note that the time scale on the horizontal axis of your graph is measured in **thousands** of years, with time flowing right to left from the past to the present. The period from one peak of temperature/CO2 to the next is something over a hundred thousand years. Yes, on that scale, CO2 levels have indeed been naturally rising over the past twenty thousand years or so, and (as **GIGObuster** noted) will drop back down and cause the next ice age in the next twenty thousand years or so. But the AGW model says that we’re putting significant short-term heating **on top of** that natural long-term cycle. There’s no question that human activities are now drastically increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If, as the model predicts, the CO2 increase produces significant temperature increase and consequent climate disruption, we’ll be dealing with the fallout from that for a long long time before it gets overwhelmed in the natural transition to the next ice age. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > I simply raised that by way of suggesting that if AGW–or any GW, for that matter–can be accurately predicted, there’s money to be made off it, so I’ll be impressed when the general “belief” (which is easy to profess) translates to placing real financial bets. But why would you be impressed by that? Why, if popular support for the AGW hypothesis is ultimately nothing more than “Great Cause hysteria”, as you claim, would there be anything impressive about people being willing to bet money on it? People have been willing in the past to bet lots of money on various irrational beliefs, and have lost lots of money as a result. Again, it just strikes me as weird that you consider that the conclusions of professional climate scientists can be so easily dismissed, while at the same time you consider that the financial choices of laypeople would indicate something significant about the validity or accuracy of the AGW hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Oregon\_sunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/50afbb/32.png) [@Oregon\_sunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oregon_sunshine)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/151 "2010-02-20T02:31:39Z")
Nevermind. sorry ---
**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 20, 2010, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/152 "2010-02-20T09:23:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I disagree, one of the main reasons I dislike the former head of the CRU is that he gave the deniers a victory by removing himself from being the head. I disagree. He’s done the honourable thing and I respect him for it. Let’s also remember that he could yet be vindicated and presumption of innocence applies. Dr Pauchuri has not done the honourable thing; his statements have been found to be in serious error. In this matter he cannot be vindicated. If he won’t go, he should be fired. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/153 "2010-02-20T13:05:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But why would you be impressed by that? Why, if popular support for the AGW hypothesis is ultimately nothing more than “Great Cause hysteria”, as you claim, would there be anything impressive about people being willing to bet money on it? People have been willing in the past to bet lots of money on various irrational beliefs, and have lost lots of money as a result. > > Again, it just strikes me as weird that you consider that the conclusions of professional climate scientists can be so easily dismissed, while at the same time you consider that the financial choices of laypeople would indicate something significant about the validity or accuracy of the AGW hypothesis. I’d be impressed that someone put real money where their mouth is, so to speak. It’s simply a test of what you really believe. Remember my basic premise is that the phenomenon of AGW’s success more closely parallels religious belief than belief in science, and behaviours of AGW believers (the masses; not necessarily the scientiests) more closely parallel behaviours of religious followers. So it’s kind of the difference between those who profess love for manking in the pews and those who truck off to Haiti. Both believe; some Believe. It has nothing to do with whether or not the underlying belief has a correct basis. As you point out, the polloi (and, dare I say it, scientists on occasion) have a habit of being irrational. To the last point re scientists, I don’t think scientists deliberately exaggerate within scientific circles on average, although I do think we are prone to the same psychology as the rest of the human race (we are influenced by what resonates with our more spontaneous beliefs) and we are willing to promote beliefs using the practical constraints of modern communication. Stephen Schneider’s infamous [quote] ([http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm](http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm)) is, I think, closer to the real world than he wants to admit: _“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”_ There is a short-term value in this approach which can come back and bite credibility when the polloi realize the scientist, too, has an agenda–however well-intentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/154 "2010-02-20T13:12:49Z")
[http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greens-take-on-sceptics-20100220-omrw.html](http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greens-take-on-sceptics-20100220-omrw.html) This probably has some relevance. “AUSTRALIAN green groups have called a strategy meeting to devise ways to hit back at the climate sceptics movement, amid fears they are losing the PR war.” Otara ---
**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 20, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/155 "2010-02-20T15:17:56Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I disagree. He’s done the honourable thing and I respect him for it. Let’s also remember that he could yet be vindicated and presumption of innocence applies. Dr Pauchuri has not done the honourable thing; his statements have been found to be in serious error. In this matter he cannot be vindicated. If he won’t go, he should be fired. “He could yet be vindicated”? What does that mean? Have you paid attention at all? The error was not part of the synthesis report and not part of the main one. Fire him for an honest mistake? Fire him for a mistake that does not change the science? Fire him because he and others corrected the mistake after other scientists reported the error? Fire him after the prime minister of India himself supported him for the same reasons I mentioned already? Sorry, deniers are the ones demanding that he would be fired for a pumped up accusation. Real skeptics publish their concerns and will change the new coming 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 20, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/156 "2010-02-20T15:22:46Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There is a short-term value in this approach which can come back and bite credibility when the polloi realize the scientist, too, has an agenda–however well-intentioned. And so far in this thread you do not have evidence of that, once again history is not telling us that regarding this subject. Scientists are not pushing a belief. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/) [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:** ![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 20, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/157 "2010-02-20T15:31:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > “He could yet be vindicated”? What does that mean? Have you paid attention at all? Are you pre-judging the independent review? Just because his records are a mess doesn’t mean that he hasn’t done good science. > [@](#): > > Fire him for an honest mistake? Fire him for a mistake that does not change the science? Fire him because he and others corrected the mistake after other scientists reported the error? But he initially didn’t correct the mistake. And he actively campaigned on the false figures. It’s a question of integrity. I know whose integrity I respect more right now. ---
**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 20, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/158 "2010-02-20T15:40:21Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Are you pre-judging the independent review? Just because his records are a mess doesn’t mean that he hasn’t done good science. I’m afraid you are confusing the Indian head of the IPCC with Phil Jones. > [@](#): > > But he initially didn’t correct the mistake. And he actively campaigned on the false figures. It’s a question of integrity. I know whose integrity I respect more right now. No, if he had made an effort to hide the mistake then we could be talking about dishonesty, there is no evidence of that. After the mistake it is clear he is modifying the campaign. And as for reviews, others taking an early look already reported that it is unlikely that they should be liable of any wrongdoing. It is only the denier, misleading or fraudulent press that is continuing to say otherwise. Speaking of Phil Jones, this already linked video reports once again the deception the right wing British press is pulling with people like you. [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:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/159 "2010-02-20T16:44:00Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > No - everyone expects typos and the like. What makes it suspect is that this was **not** a typo and should have been picked up by the peer review process and challenged. But it wasn’t. So people wonder what else has been missed. Cases of fraud and other crimes are often uncovered by exposing one tiny little lie. Anyway, we’ll see what the independent review reveals. I’m not just talking about typos. If you expect 100% perfection outside of typos, then you basically will have to disbelieve all modern science. And, as I noted, the basic problem in this case was that the statement found was made in the Working Group 2 part of the report where most of the reviewers would not have been experts in what was being said. It does suggest that some improvements could be made to the process so that there is more cross-talk / cross-review between the different working groups, but if this is the most egregious example that one can find out there of such a problem, it hardly suggests any sort of major issue. Your analogy with fraud is not a good one. The IPCC report has been in the public domain for years…as are the scientific papers that it reviews. There are tons of people scrutinizing it with the expressed purpose of trying to discredit it and yet this is the worst that they have been able to come up with. The idea that this is somehow just the tip of the iceberg doesn’t make any sense. ---
**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 20, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/160 "2010-02-20T16:58:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’m afraid you are confusing the Indian head of the IPCC with Phil Jones. Umm… no. I’m highlighting the difference between the two. Dr Jones has done the honourable thing and stepped aside, and Dr Pauchuri hasn’t. As for > [@](#): > > Speaking of Phil Jones, this already linked video reports once again the deception the right wing British press is pulling with people like you. > > [http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer.../0/\_PWDFzWt-Ag](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer.../0/_PWDFzWt-Ag) I’m a sceptic, not a denier. I look at both sides. Yes, the propaganda needs cutting through. Hell, I’ve been exposed to enough propaganda and brow-beating here. And currently, both sides are lacking. The fence is very comfortable at the moment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=9)