# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 203
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090/203 "2010-02-23T09:22:52Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > But you’re not provisionally accepting it. You’re accepting it. That’s the key difference. No. I’m saying that so far, the AGW hypothesis is the best available explanation of the observed data. If a better hypothesis comes along, that hypothesis should replace AGW as the mainstream working hypothesis for climate science. That’s what I mean by “provisional” acceptance. AGW is, for lack of a better hypothesis, the default theory, _provided_ a better theory doesn’t come along. > [@Quartz](#): > > Actually, continental drift is visible. But historical continental drift from earlier ages isn’t; it’s merely inferred from geological records, the same way we infer earlier climate trends from palaeoclimate data. > [@Quartz](#): > > Tell that to those who spout with so much certainty. (shrug) I’ll tell it to anybody. Just because there are some foolish people who overstate the certainty of the AGW hypothesis doesn’t justify other foolish people in overstating its uncertainty. > [@Quartz](#): > > I beg to differ. A lot of good science has been done in pursuit of the CO2 theory of AGW, but the theory itself is, as yet, not good science. See the difference? Nonsense. AGW may be an uncertain and still far-from-confirmed hypothesis, but there’s nothing about that that makes it “bad science”. > [@Quartz](#): > > Actually it’s sheer stupidity for a researcher to accept it as such. A researcher should be impartial. Not disinterested, though. If a researcher starts by saying that they think the CO2 theory is such then they’ve tainted their result. There’s nothing stupid or biased about a researcher accepting as a working hypothesis the current best hypothesis in his/her field. Hell, that’s the way researchers do research: they consider the predictions and implications of the scientific model that they’re using as their working hypothesis, and then they test them against observed data. You are making strange claims about scientific methodology that I don’t think most actual scientific researchers would agree with or even understand. Researchers shouldn’t provisionally accept the current best theory as their working hypothesis? WTF? That simply makes no sense. Sure, they shouldn’t make up their minds in advance about what the correct theory is, but that’s not what “accept as a working hypothesis” means. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-redux-have-they-lost-their-credibility/529090)._