# 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:** 11
**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:** [September 3, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/201 "2014-09-03T02:25:46Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > 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. As usual **FXMastermind** misses the big picture: > **[National Geographic](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/)** > > Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration. > [@](#): > > Prominent climate scientists say that discussion misses the bigger picture. The suggestion that global warming has stopped, says Richard Alley of Penn State, is “nonsense.” > > In his AGU talk, Alley demonstrated how the argument that global warming has stopped could have been made many times over the past half-century. There have been many intervals of 5, 10, or even 20 years in which the global average temperature has stalled—but inevitably the long-term warming has resumed. The problem is the intrinsic variability, or noise, in the climate system, of which the El Nino cycle is one example. > [@](#): > > Schmidt said people should avoid getting distracted by such noise, and should instead focus on the bigger questions raised by the coming IPCC report. Chief among those is what policy makers will actually do with a document that voices concern over climate change with even stronger language than before, and with greater resolution on predictions about global sea-level rise. (See “Rising Seas” in National Geographic magazine.) > > “The IPCC report is a summary of what we know. It’s not going to be radically different than [the last report in] 2007, but it’s another underlining of the seriousness with which the scientific community views this problem,” he said. Schmidt BTW is Gavin Schmidt, that was called by FXMastermind a “nobody”. It is interesting to notice what that “nobody” is doing now: [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140609/](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140609/) > [@](#): > > NASA Names Schmidt Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies > > June 9, 2014 > > NASA has named Gavin A. Schmidt to head the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, a leading Earth climate research laboratory. ---
**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:** [September 3, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/202 "2014-09-03T02:43:45Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > 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? This quote shows that you ignore that science can be done without that limitation, indeed there was no control group when Einstein proposed relativity, evidence had to be gained by natural observation like when they used the moon to see if during an eclipse one could see the lights of stars bending. As Peter Gleick Said: > **["Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked"...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/)** > > The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is... > [@](#): > > And you don’t need a “control” (as you note, we only have one earth). We have a strong and clear understanding of fundamental physics, and the observations match what that science tells us to expect, even when all the other variables are accounted for. Human caused warming is still the best, most validated hypothesis around. No other hypothesis has ever been presented that accounts for all we know and see, and THAT is what the scientific method requires. > [@robert\_columbia](#): > > 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. The options are limited all right, but we can look at Mars to check if climate computer models can deal with other worlds, it is then very important evidence in their favor when they can be used to also predict and recreate the climate of Mars. > **[Earth Climate Change Models Work for Mars, Too](https://www.space.com/18085-mars-climate-change-models-earth.html)** > > Climate models built for Earth make good predictions on Mars, pointing to their reliability, scientists say. The research is proof that climate modeling is not "junk science." > [@](#): > > Now, the researchers have combined four different measurements of Martian geology and climate, including climate predictions, the presence of glaciers, the ages of glacial surface layers and radar measurements of ice. The measurements and models are all consistent with one another, the researchers found. > > “The bottom line is that the global climate models indicate that the last few intense deposits of ice occurred about 5 million to 15 million years ago, virtually centered on Greg crater, and that’s just where the spacecraft data reveal glaciers whose surface layers date from that time,” Hartmann said. “If global climate models indicate specific concentration of ice-rich features where and when we actually see them on a distant planet, then climate modeling should not be sarcastically dismissed. Our results provide an important, teachable refutation of the attacks on climate science on our home planet.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/203 "2014-09-03T03:27:20Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > 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. That is patently false reasoning that assumes that some sort of “control group” is the only way science can function. It isn’t. Sciences like archeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology are all empirical sciences that build their conclusions from cumulative observational evidence. In the case of climate science, a great deal of research over many decades has gone into assessing the possible scope of the influence on climate of the kinds of factors you mention. Indeed climate science has made at least as many contributions to determining what _ **does not** _ cause significant climate change as what does, within particular timeframes. The overwhelming scientific consensus – based on many lines of evidence including historical climate behavior, the incontrovertible effects of greenhouse gases, and different corroborating assessments of the amounts of CO2 and other GHGs released by human activity – is that GHGs released by human activity are the dominant driver of post-industrial planetary warming and the many aspects of climate change we’re currently seeing, including accelerated polar warming and ice melt and atmosphere-ocean circulation changes. No one involved in climate research seriously doubts this except a few obvious quacks with a discreditable history of bad science and deceptive practices, and the only reason such a viewpoint has any traction at all is because of a concerted disinformation campaign that’s been waged for at least two decades by the fossil fuel industry and its allies. Which – no coincidence – is just about how long it’s been since the question you ask – “are humans making the earth hotter?” – has been definitively answered. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/204 "2014-09-04T13:39:54Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The overwhelming scientific consensus Consensus is a philosophical position, science isn’t a thing voted on. For a thousand years, the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe. As late as the dawn of the 20th century saw gravity as an innate property of matter. We do have data that acts as a control, the ice core data goes back well before the _Homo_ genus evolved. From this we clearly see a doubling of CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations in the atmosphere than the last temperature maximum. What we’re not seeing is a big jump in temperatures … yet. If within 20,000 years we see temperatures start falling again, then we’d have our falsification. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/205 "2014-09-04T23:41:01Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Consensus is a philosophical position, science isn’t a thing voted on. For a thousand years, the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe. As late as the dawn of the 20th century saw gravity as an innate property of matter. You are missing the fact that the ones that demand a vote (or a recount I should say) are the deniers out there. We have not only a consensus of scientists but a consensus of the facts. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > We do have data that acts as a control, the ice core data goes back well before the _Homo_ genus evolved. From this we clearly see a doubling of CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations in the atmosphere than the last temperature maximum. What we’re not seeing is a big jump in temperatures … yet. The jump has been observed, the implication is that it will get worse. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > If within 20,000 years we see temperatures start falling again, then we’d have our falsification. Nope, as I noted in a previous discussion Gavin Schmidt noted that we only need to see the temperatures drop at the levels seen in previous decades and remain there while the CO2 increases for a few decades. That is not happening, the so called “pause” is not letting go and it does not exist once we take the oceans into account, the temperatures have remained hotter than the previous decades. As many serious researchers noted, once the natural cycles that are masking the increase in surface temperatures come back the accumulated CO2 will still be there still contributing to and increasing the overall temperature. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/206 "2014-09-05T00:44:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is not happening, the so called “pause” is not letting go and it does not exist once we take the oceans into account, the temperatures have remained hotter than the previous decades. As many serious researchers noted, once the natural cycles that are masking the increase in surface temperatures come back the accumulated CO2 will still be there still contributing to and increasing the overall temperature. Is this statement falsifiable? I think it is, there’s nothing here that **GIGO** posted that can’t be tested. Are the natural cycles masking temperature increases? We can certainly research these phenomena, and in 20,000 years we’ll have our answer. Global warming wouldn’t be science if it wasn’t falsifiable. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/207 "2014-09-05T01:08:02Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Is this statement falsifiable? > > I think it is, there’s nothing here that **GIGO** posted that can’t be tested. Yes it can, just “reverse the polarity”. Really, your simple request can be answered by simply noticing that you only need to show that the previous decades were not colder that the “pause” we are going to, and one has to find a mechanism that fits the record that does not involve human released greenhouse gases. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Are the natural cycles masking temperature increases? As the oceans (that are 70% of the planet show) this is very likely. Incidentally one item your side never explains is why the low temperatures years of the cycles observed (the la nina years) are warmer than the ones before. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > We can certainly research these phenomena, and in 20,000 years we’ll have our answer. Sorry, but FXMastermind is not the head at GISS, it is \*\*Gavin Schmidt. \*\* > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Global warming wouldn’t be science if it wasn’t falsifiable. And it is, the problem has been that the deniers and lukewarmers out there are failing to do the basic stuff that can falsify this, or when they try to do it and fail, the ones that are real sceptics become convinced of who was correct when the evidence they checked confirmed what most scientists were telling us. > **[About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth](https://berkeleyearth.org/about/)** > > Todays Challenge Global warming is they defining environmental challenge of our time. The need for quality, accessible scientific data about global warming could not be more urgent. Yet there are few independent sources of historic global temperature... > [@](#): > > Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013. > > From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit. > > We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies. We believe that now it is our responsibility to communicate our findings, in particular with prominent stakeholders familiar with the reasons for global warming skepticism that Berkeley Earth addressed. Additionally, many programs to mitigate global warming ignore the dominant role that China, India, and the rest of the developing world will play in future emissions; we will investigate and propose new options to reduce emissions in those countries. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/208 "2014-09-05T14:05:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And it is, the problem has been that the deniers and lukewarmers out there are failing to do the basic stuff that can falsify this, or when they try to do it and fail, the ones that are real sceptics become convinced of who was correct when the evidence they checked confirmed what most scientists were telling us. I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. Please define what a “denier” is in the context of researching the climate. Would you include CERN’s [CLOUD](http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud) experiments? The broader question here is whether we should conduct experiments that could possibly falsify our current understanding of climate change. Or do you think that since the consensus is that the oceans are absorbing the energy, we don’t have to take temperatures there? Remember, we agree the Earth is warming, and we agree that man-kind contributes to this. Where we’ve disagreed in the past is I think this is a good thing, and you think it’s a evil thing. Good and evil are not things science addresses very well. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/209 "2014-09-05T14:48:14Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. Please define what a “denier” is in the context of researching the climate. Would you include CERN’s [CLOUD](http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud) experiments? A denier uses that experiment to declare that CO2 and other human global warming gases are not important at causing the warming observed. The problem is always that the sources out there never go back to correct a misconception. The context here is that the denial is a double one. First there is the denial that what the scientists are telling us. > **[From the Horse’s Mouth. The New Study on Cosmic Rays and Climate.](https://thinc.blog/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/)** > > Here’s the Nature podcast interview with Jasper Kirkby, author of the new study that has denialists all atwitter (again) over cosmic rays. Briefly, the theory is that cosmic rays hit the atmo… > [@](#): > > Recently, experiments were undertaken by Dr. Kirkby (interviewed above) at the European Atom smasher facility, – CERN – to learn more about the particle interactions that might validate this theory. The publication of his recent paper on the results has been bouncing around in the denialosphere as yet another “final nail in the coffin of man-caused global warming”. > > Dr. Kirkby’s take, as you hear in the interview — not so much. > > From the Editor’s summary in Nature: > Even with the large enhancements in rate caused by ammonia and ions, they conclude that atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary layer nucleation. And then there is the denial that this was, even if it was not the focus of it, a way that the idea that human emitted greenhouse gases are the reason for the current warming could had been falsified. There is indeed a second denial going on here and it is because in the end we will continue to see declarations from the denier sources that no falsification is possible when this case told us that indeed other possible mechanisms do fall short of the falsification that was attempted by the armchair scientists. Case in point: > [@watchwolf49](#): > > The broader question here is whether we should conduct experiments that could possibly falsify our current understanding of climate change. Or do you think that since the consensus is that the oceans are absorbing the energy, we don’t have to take temperatures there? On the contrary, this only shows that all along you are only listening to the ones seeding FUD, the constant temperature readings being made and confirmed (by people like Muller from Berkeley Earth) is a constant testing that is being done. What is silly is to claim that all that does not include experiments to check if this was happening. It is, and many lines of evidence and research had to be done to confirm that this issue is there. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@](#): > > In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Remember, we agree the Earth is warming, and we agree that man-kind contributes to this. Where we’ve disagreed in the past is I think this is a good thing, and you think it’s a evil thing. Good and evil are not things science addresses very well. Remember, that is not the issue, the issue here is if the theory that was set in modern terms by Gilbert Plass can be falsified, it can be. And attempts at falsification were made (What Berkeley Earth did was indeed one big effort at that), It is also thanks to those falsification efforts that the scientists do reach the consensus that they have nowadays. Having said that, on this it is also clear that it is very possible that crop failures are increasing thanks to the warming observed and that is then a factor on what is happening in the middle east as the Arab Spring was caused in part as result of crops failures thanks to intense droughts. > **[Review: Two New Studies on Syria, Drought, Climate Change, Natural Resource...](https://climateandsecurity.org/2014/03/review-two-new-studies-on-syria-drought-climate-change-natural-resource-management-and-the-uprising/)** > > In February of 2012 (updated in our report The Arab Spring and Climate Change in 2013) we wrote about drought and natural resource mismanagement in Syria in the past decade, the displacement of abo… Unless you can tell me that dictators and xenophobes will change soon the conclusion to me and groups like the US military is that this issue will not lead to good things. Particularly when there are groups that claim that nothing bad will take place. Well, it is likely that it is already affecting us and it is very likely to get worse when the lack of preparedness, thanks to constant denials in places like our congress, is taken into account. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/210 "2014-09-05T16:23:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > A denier uses that experiment to declare that CO2 and other human global warming gases are not important at causing the warming observed. Do you have a citation on CERN stating this? I’m absolutely crystal clear on your position that climate change due to man’s activities has not been falsified, but that’s not the question … Is it wrong to experiment and try to falsify AGW theory? ---
**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:** [September 5, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/211 "2014-09-05T16:47:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Do you have a citation on CERN stating this? Nature published the paper that is cited in the article I linked to. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html) Yep, there are the scientists at CERN indeed. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m absolutely crystal clear on your position that climate change due to man’s activities has not been falsified, but that’s not the question … > > Is it wrong to experiment and try to falsify AGW theory? I already said that it is not wrong, once again it is the denier side the one that **also** refuses to acknowledge that experiments are constantly being made (Really, the simple reason why is that is that they can not contemplate that the ongoing falsification efforts actually confirm what the consensus is reporting now). It is the results that they do not like and hence the double denial that the experiments are being done or the denial here that I already mentioned that it is not wrong to experiment. The point stands, the continuing experiments and history show that it is the contrarians who are wrong, and as Asimov noticed, they are even wrong on the levels of how wrong **they** think the scientists are. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/212 "2014-09-05T19:11:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point stands, the continuing experiments and history show that it is the contrarians who are wrong, and as Asimov noticed, they are even wrong on the levels of how wrong **they** think the scientists are. I am only able to access the abstract through that link you gave, is it the inference from the statement “We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.” that makes these 25 signatories contrarians? Seems to me they’ve honestly published their results, and in doing so doesn’t make them wrong. The physics of boundary layers is … tricky … to say the least. ---
**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 5, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/213 "2014-09-05T20:13:11Z")
Don’t confuse us with facts. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/214 "2014-09-05T20:14:59Z")
Yeah, I’m getting a headache. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/215 "2014-09-05T21:20:40Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I am only able to access the abstract through that link you gave, is it the inference from the statement “We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.” that makes these 25 signatories contrarians? > > Seems to me they’ve honestly published their results, and in doing so doesn’t make them wrong. The physics of boundary layers is … tricky … to say the least. They’re probably not contrarians, but honest scientists doing honest work. That their conclusions point the direction some people say is what is – as you note – tricky. Note that this is very indirect evidence, as opposed to actual temperature measurements. They might be incorrect in their ideas of what this chemical nucleation actually means to climate. Science often comes up with dissenting views; the overall process tends toward consensus, and minority views are challenged. Crackpottery and denialism become pathological and non-scientific, not when they disagree with the consensus, but when they become politicized, pronouncing conclusions on the basis of ideology and not evidence. Dissent is good. Velikovskyism isn’t. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2014, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/216 "2014-09-05T21:50:27Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I am only able to access the abstract through that link you gave, is it the inference from the statement “We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.” that makes these 25 signatories contrarians? No, just misrepresented. The point is clear, their issue barely registers for the current warming that is happening thanks to human released warming gases. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Seems to me they’ve honestly published their results, and in doing so doesn’t make them wrong. The physics of boundary layers is … tricky … to say the least. Again, just misrepresented, as many that look at the issue can see, **it is the deniers the ones that grabbed this** and made a mountain out of a molehill, the point here is that the scientists are not demanding that their paper be used to poopoo the global warming issue. It is the deniers who did. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/217 "2014-09-05T21:53:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > They’re probably not contrarians, but honest scientists doing honest work. > > That their conclusions point the direction some people say is what is – as you note – tricky. Note that this is very indirect evidence, as opposed to actual temperature measurements. They might be incorrect in their ideas of what this chemical nucleation actually means to climate. > > Science often comes up with dissenting views; the overall process tends toward consensus, and minority views are challenged. > > Crackpottery and denialism become pathological and non-scientific, not when they disagree with the consensus, but when they become politicized, pronouncing conclusions on the basis of ideology and not evidence. > > Dissent is good. Velikovskyism isn’t. I agree … what CERN has done is found what it is we need to look for in the atmosphere. Now we need to set up an experiment there and try to find this process in nature. If we don’t, well it won’t be the first dead-end line of research. If we do, then we can measure how much it’s happening thus how much it effects our climate. This is going to take some time, and properly so. We want good science on this matter, I think we should give the scientists all the time they need to do the job proper like. Crackpottery and alarmist become pathological and non-scientific as well, pronouncing conclusions on the basis of ideology and not evidence. We have to let honest scientists conduct their honest experiments without lamb-blasting them with the “denialist” label. Attempts to falsify even widely accept theory is a good and necessary thing, if done with integrity. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/218 "2014-09-05T21:55:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, just misrepresented. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, just misrepresented How is this misrepresented? ---
**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:** [September 5, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/219 "2014-09-05T21:56:24Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Don’t confuse us with facts. The fact remains, your great points have not generated any support where it was needed, the ones you declared “nobodies” are becoming [the director of GISS](http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/june/nasa-names-schmidt-director-of-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/#.VAow3a2VthE) or in the economic front on the issue, another source I look for, became president of the [American Economic Association.](http://news.yale.edu/2013/03/08/conversation-william-nordhaus-president-elect-american-economic-association) ---
**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:** [September 5, 2014, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/220 "2014-09-05T22:03:02Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > How is this misrepresented? You did not read the article then. > [@](#): > > Recently, experiments were undertaken by Dr. Kirkby (interviewed above) at the European Atom smasher facility, – CERN – to learn more about the particle interactions that might validate this theory. **The publication of his recent paper on the results has been bouncing around in the denialosphere as yet another “final nail in the coffin of man-caused global warming”.** > \*\* > Dr. Kirkby’s take, as you hear in the interview — not so much\*\*. And that is the basic problem, what Dr. Kirkby et al did was good science, that was (and clearly continues) to be misrepresented, they concluded that this is indeed not a refutation of man-caused global warming. But for the deniers this item has never been corrected or they only show their continuous capacity of not learning from any mistakes like grabbing an idea and making it a bigger deal than what it is. So anyone that still thinks that people like me are calling them deniers are indeed just supporting what I pointed before: they are wrong even on how they imagine the scientists are discussing this or the levels of wrong the scientists have (according once again to the imagination of the deniers). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=12)