# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 184
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786)._