Lessee, what is really the context?
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.71.html
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
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.
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.
No, it’s easy. A conservative once told a lie. Therefore, everything any conservative ever said can be dismissed as a lie.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
As denier media sucks at citations, I would say your say so here is baseless.
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.
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.
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.
The latest one:
(Inhofe appears once again as the most incompetent US senator.)
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. 
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.
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.
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.
Why do you think I put the smilie there also?
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.
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.
For more statements from scientific organizations:
And it includes one item that I gave you a chance to find to demonstrate to us if you actually knew the issue well:
Who is really desperate or ignorant? I don’t think the evidence is against me.
For those that have the time (One hour video), check the report of Naomi Oreskes on The American Denial of Global Warming.
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.
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.
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.