# Is global warming falsifiable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786 "2014-05-06T07:30:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/181 "2014-05-24T07:22:53Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Not directly, but on the other hand anyone who has a problem with any aspect of current global warming theory is labeled a ‘denier’. And the ‘consensus’ of scientists is used to shout down arguments over aspects of global warming theory that enjoy no such consensus. So there are plenty of straw men on both sides. I sincerely hope you’re not referring to your stipulations upthread that we can’t really know everything about climate, and that therefore we shouldn’t try to draw any conclusions based on the science we do understand. Because that _is_ rank denialism. ---
**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:** [May 25, 2014, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/182 "2014-05-25T06:34:43Z")
I said nothing of the short. I said there are limitation to the accuracy of our long-term predictions, and that we have to factor that in. That’s all. ---
**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:** [May 25, 2014, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/183 "2014-05-25T06:51:56Z")
“Nothing of the short”? Trying to figure out if there’s a Freudian slip in there somewhere… ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/184 "2014-05-25T20:58:55Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Gigo, it is nice that you can link to youtube. Really, that is neat. However linking to YouTube isn’t an argument. Nothing he posts is ever an argument. But back in the real world > [@dublos](#): > > One aspect of this whole debate that irks me is the idea that scientists doing climate change research and predicting outcomes that are gloom and doom are all some sort of homogenous unit and that anyone who breaks free of this and calls bullshit on their claims is going to get run out of town on a rail. > > If _any_ scientist can come up with a repeatable experiment or verifiable analysis of the data that actually is a better fit for what the results we’ve seen so far, after a predictable and very human resistance to change, every single scientist on the planet will be redirecting their efforts to the direction of this new research. > > Why? Because those scientists want to be the one do discover “it” whatever it is. This is a fairy tale that a lot of people believe. We want it to be that way. A world **where that isn’t how things work** is a bit frightening. We like to think that when evidence of how dangerous some nano particles can be is published, everybody working on nano particles is onboard with it. Everyone starts to test their new material carefully and that everybody is being careful to make sure there are no hidden dangers from new things. Nothing is farther from the truth. > [@dublos](#): > > If any of the “scientists” denying climate change had a leg to stand on they would be gaining additional scientists to their side in a tidal wave. But it’s not the simplistic view you try and paint. That’s rhetoric, not science. In fact, [many researchers publish research](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL12.pdf) and [data that directly counters the consensus view](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf), but you can be sure there is no mass movement of every researcher stopping their thing to change what they do. Far from it. The most common behavior is to dismiss it, say it isn’t true, or ignore it. Or to debunk it. Nothing in science ever goes in a simplistic way. (from a different thread) > [@Why don't climate change deniers publish?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/1): > > I won’t get in to my skeptical reasoning, but I assumed, as the article says, that there were actually climate scientists who did not favor anthropogenic global warming. > > Obviously, if there were such scientists…and they had any reasonable findings they’d publish in a heartbeat. Once again we see this fairy tale view of how the world works. It’s never worked like that. And trying to paint the entire thing as complete black and white opposites is as unscientific as it gets. The scientific issues are complicated, numerous and novel as well. > [@Why don't climate change deniers publish?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-climate-change-deniers-publish/678811/1): > > The dearth of legitimate skeptic papers is, for me, just one more nail in the coffin. I honestly don’t see how anyone could come to a different conclusion. What does that even mean? What coffin? It’s like there is this simplistic view of things that can be easily and finally closed. Nothing more to be said about it. The science is settled. That sort of nonsense rhetoric is insane at a deep level. It really does seem like a religious sort of belief, where “global warming” has replaced “God’s will” as a simple and final conclusion. “Global warming is happening” is the simplistic viewpoint, and the solution is to get everyone to believe in it. Anyone who finds evidence that the climate isn’t changing as predicted is viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Same thing for the other side. In this simplistic Universe anyone who is keeping the modern world running by providing fuels is evil, and completely against global warming. It’s not like that. The world isn’t some simple black and white drama with simple characters with simple scripts they follow. No matter how much we want to believe this. ---
**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:** [May 25, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/185 "2014-05-25T21:11:31Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nothing he posts is ever an argument. The lack of science that comes from the contrarians will get that result. Of course ignoring what happened with the misrepresentation from CO2Science only shows that what you have no interest on figuring out who’s sources are valid or good. ---
**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:** [May 25, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/186 "2014-05-25T21:18:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > But it’s not the simplistic view you try and paint. That’s rhetoric, not science. In fact, [many researchers publish research](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL12.pdf) and [data that directly counters the consensus view](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf), but you can be sure there is no mass movement of every researcher stopping their thing to change what they do. Far from it. The most common behavior is to dismiss it, say it isn’t true, or ignore it. Or to debunk it. Nothing in science ever goes in a simplistic way. We had a discussion before about that, as **wolfpup** showed **FX** just misunderstands and ignores that the scientists based their research and citations from papers that support what the consensus says, what usually happens (as in the CO2science paper) we get researchers at the cutting edge of the science and they are getting interesting results that are not really against the main idea about human released global warming gases warming the planet. There are no easy pickings as another researcher found recently when looking for papers that contradict the main view (only one last year) so contrarians resort to cherry pick and distort what the researchers in most the papers they cite conclude. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/187 "2014-06-03T14:30:05Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > And if not should it not become a religion rather than a scientific hypothesis? The signs are already there. Scientists are openly mocked and vilified if they challenge the science behind the theory. Global warming denial is now being treated by some zealots with the hatred and contempt shown (and rightly shown) to Holocaust denial. Those who have doubts about the theory are regarded as heretics. > > I’m not a scientist and have the good sense to realize that I am not qualified to make any judgment at all on global warming. But I do know this. If scientists cannot critically examine established orthodoxies without fear of destroying their careers then we’re all in trouble. I haven’t read the thread, so maybe this has been mentioned already … but it’s spewing out their blow-hole on CNN Live that destroys people’s careers, not any research they’ve done. ---
**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:** [June 3, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/188 "2014-06-03T16:24:36Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I haven’t read the thread, so maybe this has been mentioned already … but it’s spewing out their blow-hole on CNN Live that destroys people’s careers, not any research they’ve done. So, yeah, you did not read the thread. But go ahead and let others know how the argument from ignorance fallacy does work. ---
**Author:** ![ryanandrewbarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@ryanandrewbarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ryanandrewbarone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/189 "2014-06-03T16:45:56Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Of course global warming is falsifiable. If the average temperature of the Earth is not increasing then we can say global warming is not occurring. Since it is, we can say global warming is occurring (yes, I am being a smart-ass, I know what you meant). > > 3 things about your OP: > > 1. I think this exact same debate has occurred before. > 2. If you really do not know anything about the field, how do you know scientists are being persecuted for having doubts? I mean you must have some pretty strong familiarity with the field to know global warming is religious dogma among these scientists and the heretics are being persecuted. > 3. Why don’t you trust massive numbers of scientists who practice their profession in climatology? Where have you previously experienced massive numbers of scientists deliberately ignoring good data that refutes such a big theory? I don’t know if you are being serious with #3 or not. But there have been countless times where large numbers of “scientists” have deliberately ignored valid data which refutes a given theory. Heretics, though correct, were burned, tortured, maimed… Spanish Inquisition… Dark Ages… Galileo… etc. The Spanish Inquisition comes most to the forefront of my mind. In college, I had a history professor who was from Spain and taught the Inquisition as though it was no big deal. Anyway. Is it so wrong to walk to a store thats three blocks away instead of driving? I mean, when you consider everything, animals (including humans) cannot respirate CO2, so whether its causing global warming or not, it may be beneficial to reduce output. Ryan Andrew Barone [www.ryanandrewbarone.com](http://www.ryanandrewbarone.com) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/190 "2014-06-03T16:48:31Z")
> [@ryanandrewbarone](#): > > I don’t know if you are being serious with #3 or not. But there have been countless times where large numbers of “scientists” have deliberately ignored valid data which refutes a given theory. Heretics, though correct, were burned, tortured, maimed… Spanish Inquisition… Dark Ages… Galileo… etc. These people were not scientists. ---
**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:** [June 3, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/191 "2014-06-03T17:09:36Z")
> [@ryanandrewbarone](#): > > I don’t know if you are being serious with #3 or not. But there have been countless times where large numbers of “scientists” have deliberately ignored valid data which refutes a given theory. Heretics, though correct, were burned, tortured, maimed… Spanish Inquisition… Dark Ages… Galileo… etc. The Spanish Inquisition comes most to the forefront of my mind. In college, I had a history professor who was from Spain and taught the Inquisition as though it was no big deal. The big problem here is that a huge chunk of history is ignored to make a point that is not based on reality. The history of the discovery of how global warming gases work shows that we already passed the Galileo phase more than 60 years ago, People like Calendar were ridiculed in the 40s for noticing that nature would not deal with the Gigatons of carbon that we were releasing into the atmosphere. Thing is that the consensus then was that how CO2 captured infrared radiation was understood and that nature was absorbing the human made CO2. Then people like Plass and others showed the things that CO2 actually does to heat at different layers in the atmosphere and how nature was not really keeping up with the human released CO2 and other gases the consensus then changed, but it took a while. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) The few contrarian scientists are constantly getting it wrong nowadays with their alternative ways to show that this issue will not generate problems. What I advise you and the ones that use the galileo gambit is to realize that we are way pass that one and we are further into the game. People like Calendar had to wait for confirmation from people like Plass and then more research and scientists brought evidence that convinced virtually all scientific organizations that this issue can not be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/192 "2014-06-03T17:18:36Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Global warming denial is now being treated by some zealots with the hatred and contempt shown (and rightly shown) to Holocaust denial. What’s the difference between AGW and Holocost denial? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/193 "2014-06-03T18:16:18Z")
> [@ryanandrewbarone](#): > > I don’t know if you are being serious with #3 or not. But there have been countless times where large numbers of “scientists” have deliberately ignored valid data which refutes a given theory. Heretics, though correct, were burned, tortured, maimed… Spanish Inquisition… Dark Ages… Galileo… etc. The Spanish Inquisition comes most to the forefront of my mind. In college, I had a history professor who was from Spain and taught the Inquisition as though it was no big deal. Hang on, Galileo’s detractors had hard scientific evidence backing their position? Hard scientific evidence that was made up of the vast majority of published research in the field? Wow, I had no idea! Look, any appeals to “scientific consensus” had damn well better occur during or after the age of enlightenment. Because before the 1700s, there wasn’t really such a thing as science. You had a handful of people applying the scientific method in various fields. What happened to Galileo is simply not comparable. Galileo wasn’t censored due to his views going against a scientific majority - he was censored due to his views going against _religious dogma_. Of course, the reason you reach to Galileo is because science has a notoriously good track record of _not_ silencing dissenting voices - especially not those with anything meaningful to contribute. Rather, those who dissent and back their dissent up with real evidence get catapulted to the forefront of their division. Sure, I’d very much like it if Duesburg and his ilk disappeared off the face of the planet, but that’s because their views are _not_ scientific, are _not_ supported by the evidence, and are _not_ harmless. Indeed, every example I’ve seen so far either appeals to someone like Galileo from prescientific times, or appeals to some “maverick” pseudoscientist who in reality is shunned due to their hypothesis being crap. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/194 "2014-06-03T19:13:18Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > But it’s not the simplistic view you try and paint. That’s rhetoric, not science. In fact, [many researchers publish research](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL12.pdf) and [data that directly counters the consensus view](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf), but you can be sure there is no mass movement of every researcher stopping their thing to change what they do. Far from it. The most common behavior is to dismiss it, say it isn’t true, or ignore it. Or to debunk it. Nothing in science ever goes in a simplistic way. How are the papers you linked to not consistent with the consensus view? Who is dismissing these papers? Cite? Form the abstracts: [Paper 1](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL12.pdf): > [@](#): > > Current consensus on global climate change predicts warming trends driven by anthropogenic forcing, with maximum temperature changes projected in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes during winter. Yet, global temperature trends show little warming over the most recent decade or so. For longer time periods appropriate to the assessment of trends, however, global temperatures have experienced significant warming for all seasons except winter, when cooling trends exist instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. Hence, the most recent lapse in global warming is a seasonal phenomenon, prevalent only in boreal winter. Additionally, we show that the largest regional contributor to global temperature trends over the past two decades is land surface temperature in the NH extratropics. Therefore, proposed mechanisms explaining the 2 fluctuations in global annual temperature trends should address this apparent seasonal asymmetry. [Paper 2](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf): > [@](#): > > The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone. Instead, evidence suggests that summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover, which dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling. Understanding this counterintuitive response to radiative warming of the climate system has the potential for improving climate predictions at seasonal and longer timescales. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/195 "2014-06-03T19:14:34Z")
Also, it wasn’t just Galileo’s science that got him into trouble. It was largely his big mouth. He could be confrontational and sometimes rubbed people the wrong way. When you rubbed the pope the wrong way back then (insert poor taste joke here), things don’t go well for you. His contemporaries Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler had fewer problems with suggesting the earth might not have been the center of the universe. Kepler did have some problems with religion in his work but only because he was a Lutheran (with Calvinist sympathies) working for the Holy Roman Emperor, not because of the actual work he did. Of course, it does help when your work is more mathematical and nearly indecipherable to the lay person, unlike Galileo’s. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/196 "2014-07-03T03:23:50Z")
On another forum somebody stated, and they were serious, that the theory could be falsified if the global temperature cooled, but they wouldn’t state over what time period. So if arctic ice increased (but not Antarctic sea ice), and glaciers got larger (but only small alpine glaciers), and the sea level started dropping, that would disprove global warming. But with no time period defined. Anyone agree with this? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/197 "2014-07-03T04:20:23Z")
I’d suggest there are other things that might cause sea levels to drop. Sea level declines, by themselves, wouldn’t tell us enough about global temperatures. But, otherwise, kinda, yeah. If global average temperatures decline as dramatically as, over the past fifty years, they’ve climbed, that would suggest that the Global Warming phase has ended and something else is now going on. There isn’t much that anyone can do to “falsify” the observed data, of temperature rise over the last few decades. The best anyone could do would be to collect new data (indirectly, most likely.) Someone might come up with a way to infer temperatures from recent river sediment, for instance. But all that would do is widen the uncertainty. Nothing is going to do away with the temperature records of the last few decades. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/198 "2014-07-03T05:17:26Z")
> [@ryanandrewbarone](#): > > I don’t know if you are being serious with #3 or not. But there have been countless times where large numbers of “scientists” have deliberately ignored valid data which refutes a given theory. Heretics, though correct, were burned, tortured, maimed… Spanish Inquisition… Dark Ages… Galileo… etc. The Spanish Inquisition comes most to the forefront of my mind. In college, I had a history professor who was from Spain and taught the Inquisition as though it was no big deal. What an odd post. You jump from asserting, (without a single citation to any actual evidence), that “large numbers” of scientists have ignored valid data “countless times,” to a weird list of claims about religious actions, (that display errors of fact along with being anachronistic). Heretics were, indeed, burned, tortured, and maimed. Heretics were persecuted for religious beliefs, not scientific expressions. There are only two examples that are claimed for that scenario and only one of them comes close to being accurate. Galileo’s case comes close, although it is complicated by the fact that neither of his trials actually pointed to a religious belief that was taught by the church, the second trial was prompted by his own intransigence, (and further marred by what appears to have been a forged letter), and he was actually wrong in his claims regarding proofs of his opinions. Giordano Bruno is even less a martyr of science. He did engage in some scientific speculation, but what got him thrown out of every school at which he taught and abandoned by every patron whom he could cajole into supporting him was the abrasive way he attacked anyone who did not bow down and honor his thoughts. And even then, he was never attacked for his “science,” ultimately being executed because, as an ordained priest, he attacked various religious teachings regarding the Eucharist. You appear to have swallowed the propaganda surrounding the Spanish Inquisition without actually learning any of its history. The Spanish Inquisition was, indeed, a very horrible phenomenon that was used to persecute Jews and Muslims, (and those suspected of not “sincerely” converting to Christianity), for a decade or two after the completion of the _Reconquista_. After that, it tended to trail off, although it remained as an English bogeyman story in England for many years, eventually becoming a staple of anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic rhetoric. Your instructor was correct; you should have paid more attention to him. Scholars who have actually examined the trials of the Spanish Inquisition have noted that once the anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim period had passed, the actual convictions for heresy were no more numerous in Spain than they were in Catholic France or Italy or Protestant England or Switzerland or the various other Catholic or Protestant regions such as Bavaria or Prussia. And they certainly were not directed at “scientists.” The Inquisition and its Protestant equivalents were not good things, but alluding to the “Spanish Inquisition” in a discussion of attacks on science is just silly. As to the Dark Ages, (a name applied by Renaissance people to the earlier period to pretend how much more “enlightened” they were), they were not as dark as the Renaissance promoters portrayed them. They were, pretty much, the natural result of having a major empire collapse without any successor state ready to replace it. How that has a bearing on scientists ignoring facts, I have no idea, but including it in your list demonstrates a serious ignorance of history, supplanted by popular stories that are without foundation. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/199 "2014-09-03T02:02:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There isn’t much that anyone can do to “falsify” the observed data, of temperature rise over the last few decades. Except that there hasn’t been a rise for the last few decades. And certainly people can try to change the presented data to make it seem like there has been some drastic warming for the last two decades. Even when there hasn’t been. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/200 "2014-09-03T02:12:53Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Of course global warming is falsifiable. If the average temperature of the Earth is not increasing then we can say global warming is not occurring. Since it is, we can say global warming is occurring (yes, I am being a smart-ass, I know what you meant)… However, I think that the real meaning of “global warming” as it pertains to the debate is not “the Earth is getting hotter”, but “_Humans are making_ the Earth hotter”. And that’s not something that is easy to falsify - where would you get your control group? Is there an uninhabited Earth out there in a parallel universe that is subject to the same orbital quirks, geologic movements, etc. as our own world that we can compare with ours to see whether the temperature increases that we are seeing are really due to human actions as opposed to natural phenomenon related to natural outgassing from the planet’s core, changes in solar radiation, decay of naturally-occurring radioactive materials, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=11)