# Is Global Warming science?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [November 25, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856 "2009-11-25T01:50:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/1 "2009-11-25T01:50:51Z")
In SuperFreakonomics Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner devote a chapter towards global warming. The questions being posed are if we actually know what we think we know about climate change and possible solutions.
They met with several different respected climate scientists, and presented some pretty intriguing ideas, some of which run counter to the current political generally accepted thinking.
They submitted a first draft to the climatologists and scientists they spoke to, accepted revisions and suggestions, the submitted subsequent drafts which were approved. When possible they researched their material from third parties and provided their sources.
It’s an interesting chapter, and I’d urge you to read it.
That however is not what this debate is about. Even prior to its publication this chapter came under heavy criticism:
[http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/](http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/)
[http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/superfreakonimics-climate-change-controversy.php](http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/superfreakonimics-climate-change-controversy.php)
[http://www.env-econ.net/2009/10/more-criticism-of-the-superfreakonomics-climate-chapter.html](http://www.env-econ.net/2009/10/more-criticism-of-the-superfreakonomics-climate-chapter.html)
Etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam.
As it turns out, many of the allegations waged against Levitt and Dubner are false. they respond here:
> **[Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear - Freakonomics](https://freakonomics.com/2009/10/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/)**
>
> Our critics accuse us of manipulation and cherry-picking and misrepresenting a variety of arguments about climate change and energy production. If everything they said was actually true, it would indeed be a damning indictment. But it�s not.
I have always thought that mankind had an effect on the planet, and that wanton polluting had adverse consequences, and that conservation is a prudent strategy. However, a few years ago when I heard things like “Climate change is no longer open for debate.” Or. “A consensus of climate scientists declare global warming a fact,” I became uncomfortable.
This really isn’t how science works. Science should be about facts, not opinions. Opinions don’t matter. How many people believe something doesn’t matter. A steadfast assertion shutting down dissenting argument is not science. It’s faith, or politics. Maybe both.
So, what I’d like to debate is this:
Is global warming science?
I think not. I think it has left the realm of science when debate and skeptical examination is no longer welcomed.
I think the recent emails that have come out on the internet are also particularly troubling.
I would like to believe that the vast majority of scientists are sincere and full of integrity in their work, but I think the conclusions disseminated from such work can no longer be accepted at face value because of the political or near religious fervor of its adherents.
In post #3 of the pit thread on the subject of the emails:
> **[I Pit the Hadley CRU and the jerks that hacked their emails.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=540763)**
>
> So the big to-do today on this Friday before a weekend is that some hacker managed to access the confidential email of the Hadley CRU and posted 'em online. The Hadley CRU, by the way, is the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit- and...
Brian Ekers says “At this point, I’m kind of okay with AGW being a load of bushwah, if it leads to more efficient vehicles and power generation.”
To me, that sums up the problem. In the minds of some, it’s ok to falsify data because the ends justify the means. Personally, I think that clean and efficient power, conservation, and good stewardship of the planet are worthy goals in and of themselves. They do not sullied by lies or falsehoods, nor should such ever be excused.
Sadly, I think there comes a point where an issue becomes so polarized and political that one no longer knows what to trust. Climate change is there.
Global warming is no longer science. It’s politics or religion.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/2 "2009-11-25T02:42:16Z")
Well, I agree it’s been politicized to within an inch of its life. But I think we can nail down some facts:[ul]
[li]Mean temperature of the planet as a whole has been climbing, slowly and in small increments, but definitely climbing.[/li][li]Small effects on the global scale can have major effects on the local scale.[/li][li]Greenhouse gases and other effectors of global climate change have been detected to have increased.[/li][li]Human activities can be shown to have put significant amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.[/li][li]The dfegree to which manmade and natural causes are responsible for climate change is not certain, though both can be shown to be significant contributing factors.[/li][li]The effects to be expected from permitting glibal mean temperature to continue to rise are chaotic and difficult to predict.[/li][li]Potentially some serious consequences for human society could result, depending on factors not yet easy to define.[/li][/ul]
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/3 "2009-11-25T02:53:51Z")
> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> Well, I agree it’s been politicized to within an inch of its life. But I think we can nail down some facts:[ul]
Ok. I’ll try to take them one by one.
[quote]
[li]Mean temperature of the planet as a whole has been climbing, slowly and in small increments, but definitely climbing.[/li][/quote]
That could be a little more specific. I learned as a kid that we were still coming out of an ice age. The climate gets cold, and then warm and then cold and then warm. it’s been doing it for millions of years.
The fact as you’ve stated it is not particularly troublesome.
[quote]
[li]Small effects on the global scale can have major effects on the local scale.[/li][/quote]
Totally agree.
[quote]
[li]Greenhouse gases and other effectors of global climate change have been detected to have increased.[/li][/quote]
Well, that’s an odd thing. One of the things that Levitt points out is the argument that Co2 is not really a very good indicator. Some of these gases might actually have a cooling effect on the climae, and the that temperature rises might be an effect of some better environmental practices we’ve established.
Which is not to say that I oppose the idea that putting shit into the air is a bad idea. I don’t.
[quote]
[li]Human activities can be shown to have put significant amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.[/li][/quote]
The issue here is “greenhouse gases.” Which ones, specifically?
[quote]
[li]The dfegree to which manmade and natural causes are responsible for climate change is not certain, though both can be shown to be significant contributing factors.[/li][/quote]
I beleive that’s true. I don’t think it’s been demonstrated to be the case. Disentangling these two issues in a complex system ain’t easy.
> [@](#):
>
> [li]The effects to be expected from permitting glibal mean temperature to continue to rise are chaotic and difficult to predict.[/li][/quote]
>
> Sure.
> [li]Potentially some serious consequences for human society could result, depending on factors not yet easy to define.[/li][/ul]
Absolutely.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/4 "2009-11-25T03:11:45Z")
Global warming is science. Opposition to the idea of global warming is politics. The fact that a bunch of people are sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “Neener neener, I don’t believe it” doesn’t change what the observations, models, and experimental tests say.
---
### Author:  [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/5 "2009-11-25T03:17:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Global warming is science. Opposition to the idea of global warming is politics. The fact that a bunch of people are sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “Neener neener, I don’t believe it” doesn’t change **what the observations, models, and experimental tests say**.
(bolding mine)
The credibility of which has taken a serious broadside this week
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/6 "2009-11-25T03:21:24Z")
> [@Scylla](#):
>
> Sadly, I think there comes a point where an issue becomes so polarized and political that one no longer knows what to trust. Climate change is there.
[Funny how that works . . .](http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2006/06/08/boll/story.gif)
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/7 "2009-11-25T03:21:29Z")
> [@Scylla](#):
>
> Global warming is no longer science. It’s politics or religion.
Once again, that only works by ignoring history.
[http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> The story in a nutshell: From ancient times people suspected that human activity could change the climate. For example, in the 19th century many Americans believed that cutting down forests brought more rainfall to a region. The discovery of ice ages in the distant past proved that climate could change all by itself, and radically. But what caused these changes — was it variations in the heat of the Sun? Volcanoes erupting clouds of smoke? The raising and lowering of mountain ranges, which diverted wind patterns and ocean currents? Or could it be changes in the composition of the air itself?
>
> In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth’s atmosphere, we would raise the planet’s average temperature. This “greenhouse effect” was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible. Scientists found good reason to believe that our emissions could not change the climate. Anyway major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.
>
> In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.
>
> In the 1950s, Callendar’s claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1961 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.
>
> Over the next decade a few scientists devised simple mathematical models of the climate, and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly variable. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollens and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a few centuries. This finding was reinforced by computer models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, the fruit of a long effort to learn how to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. A 1967 calculation suggested that average temperatures might rise a few degrees within the next century. The next century seemed far off, however, and the calculations were plainly speculative. Groups of scientists that reviewed the issue saw no need for any policy actions, although they did draw official attention to the need for a greater research effort.
>
> In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. The mass media (to the limited extent they covered the issue) were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes warning of the prospect of a catastrophic new ice age. Study panels, first in the U.S. and then elsewhere, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system, and much more research was needed. Research activity did accelerate, including huge data-gathering schemes that mobilized international fleets of oceanographic ships and orbiting satellites.
>
> Earlier scientists had sought a single master-key to climate, but now they were coming to understand that climate is an intricate system responding to a great many influences. Volcanic eruptions and solar variations were still plausible causes of change, and some argued these would swamp any effects of human activities. Even subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit could make a difference. To the surprise of many, studies of ancient climates showed that astronomical cycles had partly set the timing of the ice ages. Apparently the climate was so delicately balanced that almost any small perturbation might set off a great shift. According to the new “chaos” theories, in such a system a shift might even come all by itself — and suddenly. Support for the idea came from ice cores arduously drilled from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. They showed large and disconcertingly abrupt temperature jumps in the past.
>
> Greatly improved computer models began to suggest how such jumps could happen, for example through a change in the circulation of ocean currents. Experts predicted droughts, storms, rising sea levels, and other disasters. A few politicians began to suspect there might be a public issue here. However, the modelers had to make many arbitrary assumptions about clouds and the like, and reputable scientists disputed the reliability of the results. Others pointed out how little was known about the way living ecosystems interact with climate and the atmosphere. They argued, for example, over the effects of agriculture and deforestation in adding or subtracting carbon dioxide from the air. One thing the scientists agreed on was the need for a more coherent research program. But the research remained disorganized, and funding grew only in irregular surges. The effort was dispersed among many different scientific fields, each with something different to say about climate change.
>
> One unexpected discovery was that the level of certain other gases was rising, which would add seriously to global warming. Some of these gases also degraded the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer, and the news inflamed public worries about the fragility of the atmosphere. Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had evidently begun to rise again. International panels of scientists began to warn that the world should take active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists’ claims about climate change first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then. (Most since then have been hotter.) But the many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made for vehement debate over what actions, if any, governments should take. Corporations and individuals who opposed all government regulation spent large sums to convince people that there was no problem at all.
>
> Scientists intensified their research, organizing programs on an international scale. The world’s governments created a panel to give them the most reliable possible advice, as negotiated among thousands of climate experts and officials. By 2001 this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any expert dissented. They announced that although the climate system was so complex that scientists would never reach complete certainty, it was much more likely than not that our civilization faced severe global warming. At that point the discovery of global warming was essentially completed. Scientists knew the most important things about how the climate could change during the 21st century. How the climate would actually change now depended chiefly on what policies humanity would choose for its greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> (These essays originally ended with the developments of mid 2001, but I have made annual updates. Be warned that this introduces distortions that cannot be avoided in doing a sort of journalism without the perspective of history.)(2\*)
>
> Since 2001, greatly improved computer models and an abundance of data of many kinds strengthened the conclusion that human emissions are very likely to cause serious climate change. The intergovernmental panel reaffirmed that in a report published in 2007, but they had not been able to narrow the range of possibilities. Depending on what steps people took to restrict emissions, by the end of the century we could expect the planet’s average temperature to rise anywhere between about 1.4 and 6°C ( 2.5 - 11°F). Although only a small fraction of this warming had happened so far, predicted effects were already becoming visible in some regions — more deadly heat waves, rising sea level, stronger floods and droughts, the spread of tropical diseases and the decline of sensitive species. See the summary of expected impacts.
>
> Scientists meanwhile improved their understanding of some less probable but more severe possibilities. On the one hand, an abrupt change in ocean circulation seemed unlikely in the next century or two. On the other hand, there were signs that disintegrating ice sheets could bring harm sooner and more severely than most scientists had expected. Worse, new evidence showed that the warming was itself starting to cause changes that would generate still more warming.
>
> The political news was a little better. The scientists who had predicted back in the 1980s that by the end of the century the world would be warmer were now demonstrably correct, and the press and other elites began to trust them. Many of the public did continue to doubt, supported by a tiny minority of scientists who clung to earlier views from ideological conviction or sheer stubbornness. But an ever larger number of individuals, government units, and corporate entities realized that something had to be done. They found that effective steps could be taken at surprisingly little cost, and many began to take them. (For a short summary of ideas on what we can do, see my personal note.)
The longer and more detailed history is here:
[http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm)
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/8 "2009-11-25T03:22:31Z")
> [@flickster](#):
>
> (bolding mine)
>
> The credibility of which has taken a serious broadside this week
[Not so much.](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)
---
### Author:  [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/9 "2009-11-25T03:23:46Z")
Not only is global warming science (it is something you can study and publish papers on), but the fact that it has become so politicized is a good thing. After all, if the science is telling you that something bad may happen (and it is), then you need a politically-based effort to stop it.
Like evolution versus creationism, the fact that there is a large group of people that are trying to disprove the science in the public arena is troublesome, and scientists are quite right to attempt to stop or ignore dishonest debate. Whether recently revealed emails reveal an attempt by some scientists to squash honest debate is something that I don’t know since I haven’t read the emails yet, nor the background of the story. I’d guess that like most denier claims, it is overblown.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/10 "2009-11-25T03:29:51Z")
> [@flickster](#):
>
> (bolding mine)
>
> The credibility of which has taken a serious broadside this week
No, it has not.
> **[What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?](https://skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html)**
>
> Earlier this week, the servers at the University of East Anglia were illegally hacked. Emails dating back to 1996 were stolen and leaked onto the web. Phil Jones, the director of the Climate Research Unit, has confirmed the emails are not forgeries...
> [@](#):
>
> Some of the emails must be embarrassing for the authors. One email responds in poor taste to the death of a well known skeptic. There’s scathing discussion of skeptics such as Steve McIntyre and Roger Pielke, including imaginings of violence. However, the crucial question is whether these emails reveal that climate data has been falsified. The most quoted email is from Phil Jones in 1999 discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):
>
> ```
> "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
>
> ```
>
> What do the suggestive “tricks” and “hiding the decline” mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
>
> The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.
>
> In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels. We’re observing an enhanced greenhouse effect. The planet is still accumulating heat. What are the consequences of our climate’s energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating. Greenland ice loss is accelerating. Arctic ice loss is accelerating. Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic ice loss is accelerating.
>
> When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments, a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for manmade global warming is yet another repeat of this tactic.
So the most quoted item was twisted so it sounds bad. I don’t think that among climate researchers that will make a splash.
Of course if you are referring to how the public will be misled, then you are correct. It is very easy to declare something is debunked like evolution, but even if many people believe that it does not change the science.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/11 "2009-11-25T03:35:43Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Global warming is science. Opposition to the idea of global warming is politics.
You kind of make my point for me. “Science” is accepting current political thinking. “Opposition” is disagreeing or taking any issue with that current thinking.
I guess you didn’t look at the links. Levitt and Dubner are being attacked merely for questioning assumptions.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/12 "2009-11-25T03:42:31Z")
I guess another way of saying it **Chronos** is that defining what constitutes science by its conclusion rather than its process is what moves global warming from “science” to religion or politics.
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/13 "2009-11-25T03:46:09Z")
> [@Scylla](#):
>
> I think not. I think it has left the realm of science when debate and skeptical examination is no longer welcomed.
Any anti-AGW scientist is free to do some legitimate research and publish in peer-reviewed journals. Instead, what they seem to have been doing is trying to nettle individual claims and create misleading info to sway public opinion.
Public opinion is meaningless. What matters is the scientific consensus. Why don’t anti-AGW scientists work to change the consensus by publishing research?
Hint: They can’t.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/14 "2009-11-25T03:50:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#):
>
> Any anti-AGW scientist is free to do some legitimate research and publish in peer-reviewed journals. Instead, what they seem to have been doing is trying to nettle individual claims and create misleading info to sway public opinion.
>
> Public opinion is meaningless. What matters is the scientific consensus. Why don’t anti-AGW scientists work to change the consensus by publishing research?
>
> Hint: They can’t.
Welllllll, if you had some of the emails that were stolen, it seems they do publish. Some of the emails that were leaked take issue with journals willing to publish dissenting research and go so far as to suggest boycotting submissions to such.
Hardly a scientific attitude.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/15 "2009-11-25T03:55:10Z")
> [@Scylla](#):
>
> In post #3 of the pit thread on the subject of the emails:
> [I Pit the Hadley CRU and the jerks that hacked their emails. - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=540763)
>
> Brian Ekers says “At this point, I’m kind of okay with AGW being a load of bushwah, if it leads to more efficient vehicles and power generation.”
>
> To me, that sums up the problem. In the minds of some, it’s ok to falsify data because the ends justify the means. Personally, I think that clean and efficient power, conservation, and good stewardship of the planet are worthy goals in and of themselves. They do not sullied by lies or falsehoods, nor should such ever be excused.
Since my name was used (albeit misspelled), I may as well respond at least once. I’d like to point out that I’m personally falsifying anything, nor encouraging falsification to occur. At this point, I figure the science is so complicated that even if AGW was happening, we might not be to actually prove it. In the meantime, if it gets us more hybrids and nuclear power, I don’t see the big deal. We’ve got enough lies and misconceptions already - one more won’t make a big deal, if that’s what AGW is.
Heck, it’ll probably turn out to do a lot less damage than previous quackeries, like phrenology and pseudoscientific racial theories. And what’s the harm, really?
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/16 "2009-11-25T04:00:43Z")
> [@Scylla](#):
>
> Welllllll, if you had some of the emails that were stolen, it seems they do publish. Some of the emails that were leaked take issue with journals willing to publish dissenting research and go so far as to suggest boycotting submissions to such.
>
> Hardly a scientific attitude.
Assuming the (specific) emails are genuine. Assuming the sender is reputable. Assuming the sender wasn’t venting and bitching. Assuming the sender hasn’t realized he was wrong, since an awful lot of data has come out in the last ten years. Assuming all of that, it sounds like maybe, just maybe we may have some evidence of one incidence of what may have appeared to one e-mail sender to be bias.
This is why peer-review exists. To reduce bias. If someone saw some one time, maybe, ten years ago that should be a reminder to be ever vigilant.
It still doesn’t make every moron with a hockey stick graph a reputable climate scientist. And it doesn’t make a blog post full of equations the equal of a peer-reviewed science.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/17 "2009-11-25T04:00:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#):
>
> Any anti-AGW scientist is free to do some legitimate research and publish in peer-reviewed journals. Instead, what they seem to have been doing is trying to nettle individual claims and create misleading info to sway public opinion.
>
> Public opinion is meaningless. What matters is the scientific consensus. Why don’t anti-AGW scientists work to change the consensus by publishing research?
>
> Hint: They can’t.
According to the hacked material, there has been some peer-reviewed publication of skeptical material. And according to the hacked material, one response has been to attempt a boycott of the publication, pressure the editors into no longer accepting the such work, and agreement to no longer even cite work from that publication unless it stops accepting such work.
So when you say, “They can’t,” you may be literally correct.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/18 "2009-11-25T04:01:52Z")
Now, that’s an interesting quote:
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> The scientists who had predicted back in the 1980s that by the end of the century the world would be warmer were now demonstrably correct, and the press and other elites began to trust them.
Would it be just as fair to soon write about how folks who’d predicted back in the 1990s that by the end of the _ **next** _ decade the world would be _ **cooler** _ are now demonstrably correct? Short timeframes are sauce for the goose as well as the gander.
As to the OP’s question: _is it science?_ Well, is it falsifiable?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/19 "2009-11-25T04:04:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#):
>
> Assuming the (specific) emails are genuine. Assuming the sender is reputable. Assuming the sender wasn’t venting and bitching. Assuming the sender hasn’t realized he was wrong, since an awful lot of data has come out in the last ten years. Assuming all of that, it sounds like maybe, just maybe we may have some evidence of one incidence of what may have appeared to one e-mail sender to be bias.
And of course, to admit that maybe there might be other such incidents, you’ll require even more convincing evidence.
What would it take for you to acknowledge that there’s been a more wide-spread campaign, not based on the science? Confession by the people involved? Would any lesser evidence do the trick?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856/20 "2009-11-25T04:04:40Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#):
>
> Would it be just as fair to soon write about how folks who’d predicted back in the 1990s that by the end of the _ **next** _ decade the world would be _ **cooler** _ are now demonstrably correct?
Can we also write about people in the 1970s who thought we’d be overrun by killer bees by now?
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-science/518856.md?page=2)