# 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:** 9
**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, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/161 "2010-02-20T17:07:44Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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. And that shows that indeed it is the denier media the one you still give too much weight, Phil Jones only stepped out as the head, he has not left CRU. Nor he was fired. I would expect then to change your tune based on that information and demand only a slap to the wrist to the Indian researcher. > [@Quartz](#): > > 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. I take it then that you also did not see the video, it clearly shows that the Daily Mail reporter added statements that were pulled out of the ass of the reporter. When someone checks what Phill Jones actually said and compares it with his actual interview and still he/she remains convinced that \*\*both \*\*sides are lacking, that person is going for willful ignorance. ---
**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, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/162 "2010-02-20T17:31:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that shows that indeed it is the denier media the one you still give too much weight, Phil Jones only stepped out as the head, he has not left CRU. Nor he was fired. I never said that he had. Go back and check my earlier comments in this thread. > [@](#): > > I would expect then to change your tune based on that information and demand only a slap to the wrist to the Indian researcher. On the contrary. Dr Pauchuri’s statements have been shown to be incorrect. There’s a world of difference. > [@](#): > > I take it then that you also did not see the video, it clearly shows that the Daily Mail reporter added statements that were pulled out of the ass of the reporter. Actually, I did. I’ve long learned to treat all news sources - and the Daily Mail in particular on this issue - with a pinch of salt. The Daily Mail is also known for stealing other’s work. Hell, the only reason I used to buy the Daily Mail was because of its puzzle section. > [@](#): > > When someone checks what Phill Jones actually said and compares it with his actual interview and still he/she remains convinced that \*\*both \*\*sides are lacking, that person is going for willful ignorance. Umm.. no. ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/163 "2010-02-20T17:44:45Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I never said that he had. Go back and check my earlier comments in this thread. It is not only for you that that clarification was important. Others do read these posts and it needs to be pointed out. > [@Quartz](#): > > On the contrary. Dr Pauchuri’s statements have been shown to be incorrect. There’s a world of difference. And I already mentioned that, being incorrect is not the same as pushing a fraudulent thing, and that is what most of the OP and the denier media are telling us, the point still remains: We should ignore the denier media until they clean up their act, just as what the IPCC is doing. AFAIK The Daily Mail still has to come clean, that reporter should be fired. A fraud does happen when on top of a mistake the source even denies that there was something wrong with the report. > [@Quartz](#): > > Actually, I did. I’ve long learned to treat all news sources - and the Daily Mail in particular on this issue - with a pinch of salt. The Daily Mail is also known for stealing other’s work. Hell, the only reason I used to buy the Daily Mail was because of its puzzle section. As with the case of the other doper, you could had fooled many 🙂 I mean, when there is no acknowledgment of being and skeptic about the denier media at least in **this thread** that is dealing on who has credibility or not regarding the mangled quotations from Phil Jones, you can risk indeed making others assume that they are as reliable as the scientists, in reality the deniers are full of shit on this latest “debunking” > [@Quartz](#): > > Umm.. no. No? The fact remains that for the scientists there was really not much needed to clean up compared to the shit the denier media is pulling here right now. As it has been mentioned many times before, you need to get some perspective) ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/164 "2010-02-20T18:27:31Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’ve long learned to treat all news sources - and the Daily Mail in particular on this issue - with a pinch of salt. I have to also point this out, you really need boulder size salt rocks to even take the reports of the deniers seriously. > **[Morano sends lies from UK Times and Daily Mail around the world](https://deepclimate.org/2010/02/16/morano-sends-lies-from-uk-times-and-daily-mail-around-the-world/)** > > Get ready. Lies originating in the U.K. over the weekend in newspaper stories by Jonathan Leake of the Times and Jonathan Petre of the Mail on Sunday, are about to hit the contrarian echo chamber. … > [@](#): > > Morano sends lies from UK Times and Daily Mail around the world > February 16, 2010 · 31 Comments > > Get ready. Lies originating in the U.K. over the weekend in newspaper stories by Jonathan Leake of the Times and Jonathan Petre of the Mail on Sunday, are about to hit the contrarian echo chamber. As usual, Marc Morano is on the case, with his Climate Depot science fabrication clearinghouse claiming that “World may not be warming, say scientists” and “Phil Jones admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″. > > But a cursory examination of the actual articles shows that not only are both claims false, but the articles themselves are chock full of other misleading statements. And reborn skeptic evangelist Jonathan Leake of the Times has not only selected highly dubious research, but has glossed over the fossil fuel industry ties of the researchers, especially those of economist Ross McKitrick. So, for the benefit of Leake and other journalists, I’ll also go over a few unsavoury facts about McKitrick that I didn’t get to last time. > > Not that any of that matters to the contrarian blogosphere and the right-wing U.S. press who will no doubt embrace these latest supposedly fatal blows to climate science in the days to come. > > Taking the more obvious fabrication first, the Daily Mail’s Jonathan Petre has rendered a highly slanted summary of an interview given by Phil Jones to the BBC. The Mail ran the false quote as the headline “No global warming since 1995″ and repeated it in a subhead for good measure. > > In the article, Petre clarified that Jones actually said that “for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming”. That’s technically correct, but highly misleading when you consider the full response: > > > [@](#): > > > > B. Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? > > > > ``` > > Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. > > > > ``` > > Jones also said that the period from 1975 to 2009 had a “very similar trend to the period 1975-1998″, implying of course that the long-term trend has not budged over the last 10 years. Climate contrarians are concentrating on meaningless shorter-term trends once again, as has been observed countless times here and elsewhere. > > In a real howler, Petre also claimed: > > > [@](#): > > > > [Jones] also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. > > In fact, Jones said the exact opposite and was at great pains to explain that if only volcanic and solar natural influences were in play in 1975-1998,” we might have expected some cooling over this period”. Probably, Petre meant to refer to two earler periods and not 1975-1998. But it’s revealing that no one at the Mail caught that outrageous howler either. > > On the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Petre was also dead wrong: > > > [@](#): > > > > Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. > > But Jones said nothing of the sort, and explicitly rejected the idea that debate about the MWP could shake the case for anthropogenic global warming: > > > [@](#): > > > > H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made? > > > > ``` > > The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D. > > > > ``` > > Petre noted reaction from unnamed “skeptics”: > > > [@](#): > > > > Skeptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now. > > Well at least now we know that Petre is an avid weekend reader of WattsUpWithThat. With his colleague David Rose’s adoration for Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit, the Mail clearly has the denialosphere well covered. This is cited not just because that blog was recommended by many serious sources, but mostly because it touches the same items the Australian science reporter mentioned in the last video that was linked to. Bottom line, Many deniers are attempting to pass themselves as skeptics, for the purposes of this thread I would like you to acknowledge that an skeptic would not be pulling the lies and misleading information that we are seeing here. ---
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/165 "2010-02-20T19:08:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As it has been mentioned many times before, you need to get some perspective) > [@GIGObuster](#): > > When someone checks what Phill Jones actually said and compares it with his actual interview and still he/she remains convinced that \*\*both \*\*sides are lacking, that person is going for willful ignorance. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Unfortunately, you don’t. Hmm… that’s three personal attacks. You guys do the pro-AGW side no favours. ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/166 "2010-02-20T19:18:53Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Hmm… that’s three personal attacks. You guys do the pro-AGW side no favours. No, that is just saying what is clear, you are assigning the same value to the say so of the scientists as the say so of the deniers, it has been demonstrated that this is not a reasonable position to take and I’m still focusing on the current issue. So again, regarding the latest reports, would you like to acknowledge that an skeptic would not be pulling the lies and misleading information that we are seeing here? ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/167 "2010-02-20T20:30:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Bottom line, Many deniers are attempting to pass themselves as skeptics, for the purposes of this thread I would like you to acknowledge that an skeptic would not be pulling the lies and misleading information that we are seeing here. You know, for the purposes of this thread, I’d like to see you argue me on what I’ve said, not what others have said. I am not responsible for what they say. The funny thing is, I was weighing in on the side of Dr Jones, who is pro-AGW. You really have done your side no favours. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/168 "2010-02-20T21:11:26Z")
Well, you don’t have to be all that clever when you got the facts on your side. Doesn’t even help all that much, really. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/169 "2010-02-20T23:13:17Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Hmm… that’s three personal attacks. You guys do the pro-AGW side no favours. If this board has gotten to the point that telling someone that they do not have a point is a personal attack, then I will in fact consider this board no longer worth posting to. ---
**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 21, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/170 "2010-02-21T00:11:57Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > You know, for the purposes of this thread, I’d like to see you argue me on what I’ve said, not what others have said. I am not responsible for what they say. Of course, however if you insist that in this case what the deniers say has the same value as what the scientists say (“I’m on the fence”) you have to explain why in \*\*this \*\*case it makes sense to ignore that what the deniers are saying are lies or misleading information, it is thanks to their input that we get that uncertainty that you are showing. The point is that being an skeptic also requires that one investigates and give the proper weight to the information provided. > [@Quartz](#): > > The funny thing is, I was weighing in on the side of Dr Jones, who is pro-AGW. > > You really have done your side no favours. Oh well, the old I’m getting hurt so I will support the other side argument. If you had paid attention you would see that you have here a chance to show that you are an skeptic and not a denier, if you are unwilling to even admit that in this specific case the denier media is fooling many and seeding doubts into people like you then I really have to question how much of an skeptic you really are. And I think that **Hentor the Barbarian** is on the money here. ---
**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 21, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/171 "2010-02-21T01:10:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course, however if you insist that in this case what the deniers say has the same value as what the scientists say (“I’m on the fence”) Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I make no such claim. Again you conflate deniers with sceptics. Again, anyone who departs from the right-on group-think must be beaten down. It is up to those who propose AGW to prove their claim. I find the CO2 theory they propose lacking. But that doesn’t mean that I disbelieve it: the Earth has indisputably warmed these past 200 years. It is up to those who propose alternative warming theories to prove their claims. They have yet to do so. The two sides do not need to be equivalent for me to be on the fence. Neither side has proven their case to my satisfaction. Now, are you going to debate me, or the subject of the OP? ---
**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 21, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/172 "2010-02-21T01:44:35Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I make no such claim. Again you conflate deniers with sceptics. Nope, read it again, the point is that the misleading news that gave us the OP \*\*are \*\*equating deniers with skeptics, I’m giving you a chance to clearly make a separation. > [@Quartz](#): > > Again, anyone who departs from the right-on group-think must be beaten down. It is up to those who propose AGW to prove their claim. I find the CO2 theory they propose lacking. But that doesn’t mean that I disbelieve it: the Earth has indisputably warmed these past 200 years. It is up to those who propose alternative warming theories to prove their claims. They have yet to do so. The two sides do not need to be equivalent for me to be on the fence. Neither side has proven their case to my satisfaction. That is a good separation, but once again, not the specific point of the thread. If there is something that you should take into account is that the efforts of the deniers are cumulative, when in this latest case it is 100% clear they are attempting to fool not only the American and British people but also the whole world, then staying on the fence is not a sensible position to have in \*\*this \*\*specific case. > [@Quartz](#): > > Now, are you going to debate me, or the subject of the OP? So, in the end you continue to ignore that I’m also replying to the OP. Indeed the OP is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/173 "2010-02-22T00:26:11Z")
[This](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall) is more of what I’ve been talking about. Who the fuck is checking the data? It is so hard to believe the reports of how bad things are now and how horrible they are going to get when they screw up their facts. “OMG! Oceans are going to rise so much it will look like a Kevin Costner movie! Huh? What’s that? OK, maybe we’ll just lose a few Pacific islands. Or maybe a couple sand castles. Or maybe more. Or maybe not. Or…” Really, if I did this at work with the reports and presentations I’ve given I would be out on my ass. I need to not only give accurate information, it must be verified and reproducible. I’m not a scientist but my work must be capable of being duplicated if needed. Why can’t these yahoos at the IPCC and all of the information providers be held to the same kind of accountability? ---
**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, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/174 "2010-02-22T01:37:11Z")
> [@Slypork](#): > > [This](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall) is more of what I’ve been talking about. Who the fuck is checking the data? It is so hard to believe the reports of how bad things are now and how horrible they are going to get when they screw up their facts. > > “OMG! Oceans are going to rise so much it will look like a Kevin Costner movie! Huh? What’s that? OK, maybe we’ll just lose a few Pacific islands. Or maybe a couple sand castles. Or maybe more. Or maybe not. Or…” > Really, if I did this at work with the reports and presentations I’ve given I would be out on my ass. I need to not only give accurate information, it must be verified and reproducible. I’m not a scientist but my work must be capable of being duplicated if needed. Why can’t these yahoos at the IPCC and all of the information providers be held to the same kind of accountability? Did you really read the article? > [@](#): > > The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher. The article that was withdrawn was published in 2009, that is the one that claimed that the sea rise would actually go up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown As the IPCC is working with the new report, this would be important for the discussion at hand if it had been accepted, as it is it was the author that withdrew it himself, meaning that the most sourced estimate of 2007 still remains as the more reliable one until new research is confirmed. BTW can you let us know what source implied that that research was coming from IPCC? That source is indeed pulling something from their ass as the new report is not due until 2013. Speaking of accountability, this blogger via Rabett Run explains what is going on here and what the OP is missing: > **[Accountablity](http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/accountablity.html)** > > The problem with the current "debate", which I have seen others mention elsewhere (I can't remember where or I would link), is the asymmetry... > [@](#): > > Accountablity > The problem with the current “debate”, which I have seen others mention elsewhere (I can’t remember where or I would link), is the asymmetry. > > Scientific research labs and institutions are held accountable for what they publish and the media will actually criticize them for any mistakes. They simply couldn’t get away producing and publishing anything near as low quality as the SPPI analysis of the CRU emails. Even the investigative team that is reviewing the CRU emails is under scrutiny. > > In contrast, none of the usual denialist outlets have any accountability. They can’t be discredited even if they deserve it. Noone writes headlines when Watt’s screws up. Same with the Heartland Institute and SPPI. Noone writes headlines when an analysis like the one the SPPI published gets spread like wildfire. The deniosphere have a lack of oversight. Anyone can say what they want of course - even really ridiculous things - but they should be justly held to account and widely discredited if they do say ridiculous things or behave badly (it’s overdue). > > It’s ironic of course that a lot of denialist’s appeal to immense levels of accountability from the likes of the IPCC and the CRU, without demanding any of themselves. > > Therein lies a bit of a skeptic delusion about the difference, I am sure you’ve heard a variant. It’s that scientific organizations, etc should be held accountable because they are funded by tax payers. > > This is wrong of course. Scientific organizations should be held accountable even if they are privately funded and that goes for non-scientific organizations too. If you mislead people, intentionally or not, you should be held accountable. Which in many cases can just mean some bad press. Being discredited is the risk you run and so hopefully stops people running it. That’s the checking role the media and journalists play and any publishing medium that can possibly influence decisions that affect many people, should be held accountable. Yes even blogs. Even think-tanks. When they get to a certain level of influence it’s the job of the media to hold them accountable. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/175 "2010-02-22T03:59:00Z")
> [@Slypork](#): > > [This](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall) is more of what I’ve been talking about. Who the fuck is checking the data? It is so hard to believe the reports of how bad things are now and how horrible they are going to get when they screw up their facts. Do you understand how science works? Do you think science advances because almost all scientific papers are correct if they get published? This is in fact a case where science worked quite well…A paper was published and when other scientists saw it, they noticed some very significant flaws. These flaws were pointed out to the authors who (frankly, unlike most scientists faced with a similar situation) decided to take the most honorable route and completely retract the paper. And, all of this happened within 7 months of the paper’s publication. (The peer review that a paper undergoes before it is published is not meant to guarantee that a scientific paper is valid. It is only meant to serve as a minimal level of review that increases the signal-to-noise level.) > [@](#): > > Really, if I did this at work with the reports and presentations I’ve given I would be out on my ass. I need to not only give accurate information, it must be verified and reproducible. I’m not a scientist but my work must be capable of being duplicated if needed. Science is done at the forefront of our knowledge. It is not just simple manipulations like filling out a tax return. It is expected that much of what appears in scientific journals will turn out to be wrong or only partially correct. And, no single paper should be regarded as definitive, and especially before there has been enough time for other scientists to react to it. This is a point that should always be reiterated, and often needs to be when a new paper is published that supposedly undermines some aspect of AGW…Or, supports it, for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/176 "2010-02-22T17:41:38Z")
I am glad that the researchers find the mistakes and retract the papers or findings. My problem is with how the information is put out to the public and ultimately the governments that will use the information for determining economic policies. No, there is no reference in this case to the IPCC but there have been previous instances where the information the IPCC used was incorrect in one way or another and had to be amended or redacted. **GIGO** , you quoted from a site: > [@](#): > > Therein lies a bit of a skeptic delusion about the difference, I am sure you’ve heard a variant. It’s that scientific organizations, etc should be held accountable because they are funded by tax payers. > > This is wrong of course. Scientific organizations should be held accountable even if they are privately funded and that goes for non-scientific organizations too. **If you mislead people, intentionally or not, you should be held accountable. Which in many cases can just mean some bad press. Being discredited is the risk you run and so hopefully stops people running it. That’s the checking role the media and journalists play and any publishing medium that can possibly influence decisions that affect many people, should be held accountable. Yes even blogs. Even think-tanks. When they get to a certain level of influence it’s the job of the media to hold them accountable.** bolding mine. This is part of the problem. When a newspaper makes a mistake the correction is buried on page 25 under the grocery ads. People usually don’t see the correction. The scientific corrections are similarly minimal until someone drags them forward. This gives a public impression of: a. The scientists are embarrassed by their mistakes and are mumbling an apology b. The scientists are basically throwing out any info they can and don’t know what the hell they are talking about but the politicians don’t give a damn and want to “promote their agenda”. How many times have we heard that coffee, wine, beer or what have you is good for you followed shortly by a report that it’s bad for you, followed by how it will let you live for eternity, followed by how it will kill you immediately, etc, etc. It gets to the point that the next scientific paper is met with a :rolleyes: . Take a look at saccharin as an example of how questionable research and incorrect results can influence government agencies and businesses. > [@jshore](#): > > Science is done at the forefront of our knowledge. It is not just simple manipulations like filling out a tax return. It is expected that much of what appears in scientific journals will turn out to be wrong or only partially correct. And, no single paper should be regarded as definitive, and especially before there has been enough time for other scientists to react to it. This is a point that should always be reiterated, and often needs to be when a new paper is published that supposedly undermines some aspect of AGW…Or, supports it, for that matter. You are right. But the public perception is the problem that they face. Scientists do research and publish a paper. It is reviewed and found to be reasonable and accurate. Politicians come forward and say that the debate is over and the issue is settled. New review of the data shows inaccuracies and the report is redacted. The public now thinks that everything is coming from a lying politician. This then makes people question the accuracy of the other data used in the report. I do believe in global warming. I do believe in climate change. The degree of influence that man’s activities might have on the system is still in doubt to me, though. The more I hear from scientists and politicians, the more I think of Bernie Madoff, telling his customers what they want to hear until finally the bottom dropped out. ---
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/177 "2010-02-22T18:59:37Z")
> [@Slypork](#): > > How many times have we heard that coffee, wine, beer or what have you is good for you followed shortly by a report that it’s bad for you, followed by how it will let you live for eternity, followed by how it will kill you immediately, etc, etc. It gets to the point that the next scientific paper is met with a :rolleyes: . Take a look at saccharin as an example of how questionable research and incorrect results can influence government agencies and businesses. So? As you acknowledge already scientists are corrected when mistakes are made, that is what happens in science. Too bad that you are assuming that that correction is a condemnation. And you are still avoiding acknowledging that the denier media pulled a fast one on you in the > [@Slypork](#): > > I do believe in global warming. I do believe in climate change. The degree of influence that man’s activities might have on the system is still in doubt to me, though. The more I hear from scientists and politicians, the more I think of Bernie Madoff, telling his customers what they want to hear until finally the bottom dropped out. Currently humanity can be blamed for the current unnatural warming. Based on the current best estimates and confirmed research we can expect to get 3 degrees of unnatural warming if nothing is done by the end of the century. As it was reported, virtually all of the denier points mentioned by the denier media in this thread were misrepresentations, items that were not the whole truth, or lies. You need to demand accountability from sources that are misleading you. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/178 "2010-02-22T21:37:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/179 "2010-02-22T21:50:19Z")
Scientists cannot exactly predict when I will die of cancer due to my smoking. Once they even told me smoking causes canker sores. Looks like they were wrong about that. Therefore, smoking does not cause cancer. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/180 "2010-02-22T21:58:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So? As you acknowledge already scientists are corrected when mistakes are made, that is what happens in science. Too bad that you are assuming that that correction is a condemnation. And you are still avoiding acknowledging that the denier media pulled a fast one on you in the > Currently humanity can be blamed for the current unnatural warming. Based on the current best estimates and confirmed research we can expect to get 3 degrees of unnatural warming if nothing is done by the end of the century. The problem is not what the scientists find. The problem is public perception. The experts give a statement and then have to retract it because of mistakes. They tell us they based their models on specific data and then tell us they lost or erased the data. While the basic premise remains the same, the details give doubts. The more discrepancies and piddling little things that they have to correct, the more doubt that gets sown in the mind of the public. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As it was reported, virtually all of the denier points mentioned by the denier media in this thread were misrepresentations, items that were not the whole truth, or lies. You need to demand accountability from sources that are misleading you. 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.” Will this take more time? Sure. Will it satisfy all the skeptics? No way. But it will change the public perception. And that would be a major improvement. And don’t send out the dry scientist or Al Gore. Use someone like Micho Kaku (hell, get Bill Nye) who can explain what was originally reported, what is now known and what it means in such a way that the average 6th grader would get it. No drowning polar bears. No PowerPoint presentations. I’m a climate change agnostic. 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: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090.md?page=10)