# Question for Climate Skeptics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727 "2012-01-26T13:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/21 "2012-01-26T16:29:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Your theory makes very little sense. You’re claiming that the reason no climate change deniers get published is because climate change is the consensus and that the reason climate change is the consensus is because climate change deniers can’t get published. You quoted **puddleglum** using the term “global warming” half-a-dozen times, and then replied by – repeatedly using the term “climate change”. Which brings me to this: > [@](#): > > As for money, I can see where there are businesses that put waste chemicals in the air and have a vested interest in saying there is no climate change. But who exactly is paying people to claim there is climate change? Who makes money from it? Nobody makes a profit out of not polluting. > > If it’s just a racket, why wouldn’t the scientists use a real problem and ask for money to work on that? That way they wouldn’t have to worry about anyone exposing their lie. But **puddleglum** isn’t “saying there is no climate change” – sure as no “climate change” lie would be exposed if the climate changes, regardless of whether the globe warms. You’re talking past each other. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/22 "2012-01-26T17:25:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Your theory makes very little sense. You’re claiming that the reason no climate change deniers get published is because climate change is the consensus and that the reason climate change is the consensus is because climate change deniers can’t get published. > > So back before there was any consensus on the issue, who made the decision that climate change would be the future consensus and that from now on only articles that supported that view would get published? And how did they get the word out to all the scientific journals that they were only supposed to accept articles that supported that side? > > And you claim that egotistic scientists get big rewards for proving some new idea is right. Now that climate change is the consensus, wouldn’t that be an incentive for egotistic scientists to prove climate change is wrong? > > As for money, I can see where there are businesses that put waste chemicals in the air and have a vested interest in saying there is no climate change. But who exactly is paying people to claim there is climate change? Who makes money from it? Nobody makes a profit out of not polluting. > > If it’s just a racket, why wouldn’t the scientists use a real problem and ask for money to work on that? That way they wouldn’t have to worry about anyone exposing their lie. I am not claiming that this has been done in climate science but that it is possible to happen because the OP claimed that consensus about wrong conclusions is impossible. I know that it is possible because it has happened in psychology and economics which are the two fields I know most about. The way paradigms are created is that the early research points one way and someone with a theory that explains it is elevated to a position of prestige. From that point on they then defend their theory against all comers because any attack on the theory is an attack on their prestige. The way science is supposed to work is that the paradigm only lasts as long as the supporting evidence, the way it actually works is that it lasts until the opposing evidence is so strong that it can no longer be denied. Coming up with a new paradigm is obviously a strong incentive for scientists but it takes someone who can stand up to the establishment and most of us are not mavericks. There is lots of money in global warming promotion, AlGore’s huge mansion was not built with the money from his dad’s antique store. Enron was going to make huge amounts selling carbon offsets, Solyandra was goint to make huge amounts selling solar panels, “Sustainability” initiative spending is supposed to be 60 $ billion in two years. That might not be oil company money but it ain’t hay. As for why climate scientist don’t pick a real problem like malaria to work on, I don’t think their skills are highly transferrable. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/23 "2012-01-26T17:45:06Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > I am not claiming that this has been done in climate science but that it is possible to happen because the OP claimed that consensus about wrong conclusions is impossible. I know that it is possible because it has happened in psychology and economics which are the two fields I know most about. > The way paradigms are created is that the early research points one way and someone with a theory that explains it is elevated to a position of prestige. From that point on they then defend their theory against all comers because any attack on the theory is an attack on their prestige. The way science is supposed to work is that the paradigm only lasts as long as the supporting evidence, the way it actually works is that it lasts until the opposing evidence is so strong that it can no longer be denied. Coming up with a new paradigm is obviously a strong incentive for scientists but it takes someone who can stand up to the establishment and most of us are not mavericks. > There is lots of money in global warming promotion, AlGore’s huge mansion was not built with the money from his dad’s antique store. Enron was going to make huge amounts selling carbon offsets, Solyandra was goint to make huge amounts selling solar panels, “Sustainability” initiative spending is supposed to be 60 $ billion in two years. That might not be oil company money but it ain’t hay. > As for why climate scientist don’t pick a real problem like malaria to work on, I don’t think their skills are highly transferrable. But this gets back to the point I was making about the whole thing being pre-planned. Al Gore didn’t set out to make up climate change in order that he would be able to use it to collect a Nobel Prize a couple decades later. Don’t let the tail wag the dog. Scientists didn’t report climate change in order for businessmen to sell products. Businessmen sell products in response to scientists reporting climate change. If the scientists had discovered something else, businessmen would have figured out economic opportunities from that discovery instead. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/24 "2012-01-26T18:20:39Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You should be. The linked article made no such claim. The article has “… slightly less likely …” Just change “slightly” to “much” and Rune’s claim is sensical. 🆒 Such distortion reminds me of another recent SDMB debate: “Did FDR help or hinder recovery from the Great Depression?” A poll of academics found for “help” but with a little data massaging (discard historians as left-leaning, and lump neutrals with “hinder”) a right-wing blog was able to reverse the poll’s meaning. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/25 "2012-01-26T18:28:38Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The article has “… slightly less likely …” Just change “slightly” to “much” and Rune’s claim is sensical. 🆒 > > Such distortion reminds me of another recent SDMB debate: “Did FDR help or hinder recovery from the Great Depression?” A poll of academics found for “help” but with a little data massaging (discard historians as left-leaning, and lump neutrals with “hinder”) a right-wing blog was able to reverse the poll’s meaning. Was the part when FDR 1. Made it a criminal act to keep private property (gold) as a store of value 2. Ordered farmers to destroy food, amidst a starving nation, as an attempt to increase demand and prices 3. Supported the US vs. Schecter Poultry the part that “helped?” or “hindered?”. I get a little mixed up on that from time to time. Good thing those academics cleared it up for me. I suppose all those things “helped”, then. ---
**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:** [January 26, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/26 "2012-01-26T18:39:40Z")
**puddleglum** , I hear what you are saying but it does not explain groups like the [Defense Science Board](http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf), a purely military group of scientists that will not get financial gain by recognizing climate change. They, as far as I can see, have no dog in this fight, yet they still recognize climate change as a huge threat for United States National Security. Even Bush’s Director of National Intelligence [recognized climate change](http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf) and [appreciated it security implications](http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080625_testimony.pdf). I can only conclude that you think these scientists and our intelligence services are inept; they are not smart enough to evaluate the data. Either this, or maybe they are too scared and morally bankrupt enough not to stand up the the academic crowd when they are reporting to their bosses at the pentagon. Is my conclusion correct? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/27 "2012-01-26T18:40:25Z")
I apologize if I hijacked the thread. I think reading “slightly” and pretending to see “much” is a prime example of how debates get confused. The FDR debate was relevant only as another example of that. But, since Fighting Ignorance is always our goal: > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Was the part when FDR > > 1. Made it a criminal act to keep private property (gold) as a store of value > … he part that “helped?” or “hindered?”. I get a little mixed up on that from time to time. Helped (though rationalists might find a less vituperative phrasing than yours). This has been discussed in recent threads, and is agreed by most economists outside the lunatic fringe. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/28 "2012-01-26T19:52:26Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > **puddleglum** , I hear what you are saying but it does not explain groups like the [Defense Science Board](http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf), a purely military group of scientists that will not get financial gain by recognizing climate change. From that link, their first recommendation is “developing a robust climate information system”: _“Currently, no coherent, integrated climate information system capable of generating reliable, sustained, and actionable climate data and projections exists.”_ (Their remaining recommendations involve (a) water security, and (b) roles of the national security community, guidance and DOD organization, and combatant command roles.) _“There remain many uncertainties in basic climate process understanding that present barriers to specifying an optimal, sustained information system with confidence,”_ they write; I’m inclined to agree with them; they also mention that _“the uncertainties about continued changes and populations’ abilities to adjust to those changes have led this report to a hedge strategy that recognizes the wide range of potential scenarios about the scope and rate of change. It focuses on climate related actions that will be beneficial to national and international security, regardless of the rate of climate change. This report places particularly strong emphasis on the need for programs and activities that provide better and more credible information to decision makers.”_ I’m generally in favor of said Hedge Strategy and said Particular Emphasis, and – as they explicitly lack actionable climate data and projections – this is no exception. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/29 "2012-01-26T19:57:08Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > It does not take a huge conspiracy. Science is advanced through peer reviewed academic articles at prestigious journals. If you are a referee at a prestigious journal you just have to publish all the pro global warming articles and refuse to publish anti-global warming articles. This first sentence is enough to show the general cluelessness of this post. Do you think that referees work at journals? Do you think that referees profit from either giving a paper a good grade or a bad one? Are you accusing journal editors - from the beginning - of selectively picking reviewers or of throwing away bad reviews or good reviews? If so, I’d like to see some evidence. Otherwise, you sound like the creationists who cry about their bullshit papers not getting accepted. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/30 "2012-01-26T20:02:01Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > There is lots of money in global warming promotion, AlGore’s huge mansion was not built with the money from his dad’s antique store. Enron was going to make huge amounts selling carbon offsets, Solyandra was goint to make huge amounts selling solar panels, “Sustainability” initiative spending is supposed to be 60 $ billion in two years. That might not be oil company money but it ain’t hay. > As for why climate scientist don’t pick a real problem like malaria to work on, I don’t think their skills are highly transferrable. Al Gore had his mansion before his movie. His father was a senator, remember, and fairly rich I think. Even if there was no global warming, don’t you think there would be the same push for solar cells? The pitches I’ve heard were all about saving money versus fossil fuel, not primarily about reducing carbon emissions. Or are fuel prices a conspiracy of the environmentalists also? ---
**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:** [January 26, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/31 "2012-01-26T20:44:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But that’s, like, the exact opposite of what you just now copy-and-pasted me saying: I’m saying that fourteen years without warming _ **doesn’t** _ supposedly refute the long-term data. I’m saying that – to guard against such an “outlier” possibility – the year-after-year-after-year-after-et-cetera thing _ **isn’t** _ yet enough to count as long-term data. > > I’m saying we’d need yet more years to play out like the last fourteen years just did before the long-term data is supposedly refuted. > > But I agree that fourteen years without warming isn’t yet enough to reach the opposite conclusion; you should know that, as you just quoted me agreeing that it’s not yet enough to reach the opposite conclusion. I’m not entirely sure why you’re replying to me in general, or so harshly in particular; am I disagreeing with any of the above? > > Of course – with the caveat that, as you promptly go on to cite NASA talking in broad terms about the “warmest years,” it’s the least bad way to describe (a) what’s being predicted and thus (b) what may or may not come to pass. When you say you believe _“global warming”_ is on the way, you mean – what, exactly? Would you describe it in terms that fit your _“no single ‘temperature’ of the earth”_ phrasing, or would you express it rather differently? Sorry, but the experiment and the test for this item does include several years before the 50’s and up to today, so we already have several decades showing the warming trend. Asking to wait for more years is indeed moving the goal posts as it was pointed out several times before to you. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/32 "2012-01-26T20:47:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry, but the experiment does include several years before the 50’s and up to today, so we already have several decades showing the warming trend. asking to wait for more years is indeed moving the goal posts as it was pointed out several times before to you. You’re mistakenly describing the exact opposite of my position: I’m not asking to wait more years to confirm it, I’m saying we’d need to wait more years to falsify it. Moving the goalposts is your specialty, not mine. ---
**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:** [January 26, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/33 "2012-01-26T20:52:16Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You’re mistakenly describing the exact opposite of my position: I’m not asking to wait more years to confirm it,\*\* I’m saying we’d need to wait more years to falsify it.\*\* Moving the goalposts is your specialty, not mine. I’ll let you explain it to yourself. Pro tip: you are still trying to avoid the fact that it has already been tested, give it up. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/34 "2012-01-26T21:01:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Pro tip: you are still trying to avoid the fact that it has already been tested, give it up. I of course agree that it has already been tested. Don’t you agree that further testing may falsify it? You once offered a forward-looking test; you then moved the goalposts to a completely different forward-looking test; you then moved the goalposts to yet another forward-looking test; why the heck do you keep proposing those tests, if not because you and I agree that further testing may falsify it? Wasn’t your latest proposed test that the temperature will rise by at least a tenth of a degree per decade? **We’d need to wait more years to falsify that.** ---
**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:** [January 26, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/35 "2012-01-26T21:14:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I of course agree that it has already been tested. Don’t you agree that further testing may falsify it? You once offered a forward-looking test; you then moved the goalposts to a completely different forward-looking test; you then moved the goalposts to yet another forward-looking test; why the heck do you keep proposing those tests, if not because you and I agree that further testing may falsify it? > > Wasn’t your latest proposed test that the temperature will rise by at least a tenth of a degree per decade? **We’d need to wait more years to falsify that.** Useless pap as established on many previous discussions. As mentioned already, that falsification is as probable as un-boiling an egg, in the end it is silly to wait longer to falsify it. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/36 "2012-01-26T21:35:41Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The article has “… slightly less likely …” Just change “slightly” to “much” and Rune’s claim is sensical. For those as curious as I was, the abstract purports that > [@](#): > > On the whole, the most scien- tifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a se- rious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. In other words, the salient finding is that higher levels of scientific literacy appear to _cement_ those opinions to which someone is already predisposed. Which makes a certain amount of sense; I suspect that laypersons who feel most strongly about climate change, one way or the other, are the ones with the most gumption toward autodidacticism. Although the authors do find that climate change skeptics have slightly higher scientific literacy, it’s really _very_ slight, at least if I’m reading the relevant table correctly. One standard deviation increase in literacy implies a 3 - 4% standard deviation reduction in the perceived risk of climate change, which isn’t significant at the 0.05 level in the richer models. And it wouldn’t necessarily mean that climate skeptics are smarter — it could merely be that those with the lowest literacy tend to freak out disproportionately. In any case the effect is dwarfed by the socio-political variables. ---
**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:** [January 26, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/37 "2012-01-26T21:59:59Z")
That seems to include the recent example of 2 scientists that resigned in a huff because their organization of physicists came with a very certain official position that humans are changing the climate, I can say that many other scientists already explained why their huffiness was uncalled for (they were not experts on sciences applied to the issue also) and therefore one can see what the problem is for the ones that are smart but ignore the evidence. They \*\*should \*\*know better. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/38 "2012-01-26T22:02:16Z")
NM-wrong thread. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/39 "2012-01-26T22:28:12Z")
Just for the record, I was NOT comparing AGW skeptics to Einstein. I was actually going for a joke there, but it seems to have derailed the thread somewhat, so figured I’d come in to clarify my throw away line there. [QUOTE=Stelios] Einstein didn’t overturn Newtonian physics, he improved upon it. What the AGW skeptics are suggesting is that either (a) the earth is not warming, or (b) the earth is warming, but that carbon emissions have nothing to do with it. In either case they are arguing directly counter to the strong prevailing currents of established, peer-reviewed evidence. I find it difficult to understand how they could hold such a position without considering the bulk of evidence supporting AGW to be not just wrong, but fraudulent. [/QUOTE] At the time it was pretty radical stuff, and was definitely seen as a departure from the writ as handed down by Newton. Again, I’m not comparing his achievements to those of the AGW skeptics. All I’m saying there is that science works by constant re-evaluation and re-examination of theories. Constant testing. And that in the past, traditional theories have been overturned as new data comes to light or new experiments or theories are put forth and tested. Evolution might have been a better example, but then I couldn’t have used the Einstein joke. Do I think that the current level of AGW skepticism is on par? Nope, not from what I’ve seen. But the basic premise of skeptics challenging theories is the basis of science and the scientific method, so overall it’s a GOOD thing to challenge theories like this, not to say ‘well, it’s good enough, guess we know it all now and don’t need to keep looking’. Science doesn’t work that way. > [@](#): > > I agree. However, the weight of evidence supporting evolutionary theory is so strong that any theory which supplanted it would necessarily be very similar to it. I feel that AGW is supported by enough evidence that would be a conceptual challenge for a skeptic to dismiss it out of hand without recourse to conspiracy theories. This is because virtually all the accepted available evidence points in pretty much the same direction. The latitude for honest disagreement doesn’t seem to be that wide. As with evolution, any evidence based opposition to AGW should lead dissenters to adopt theories which are, for the main, similar to it. That so many people reject AGW out of hand indicates that they think all the evidence in favour of it is suspect. Hence their vague intimations toward some kind of conspiracy within the scientific community. I think they should be prepared to answer questions on how this so-called conspiracy works. And in turn, I agree with you here as well. I’ll just say that not all ‘deniers’ are CT nutters who think that all of the scientists are in collaboration to do whatever the CT is supposed to be doing (take us back to living in caves or something I guess). The way science works you are always going to have some fringe folks who are real, honest to the gods scientist types who are challenging a widely accepted theory, not because they think there is a vast conspiracy but because they think they are right…or because there is a hell of a lot of prestige for the person who DOES come up with something new that eventually gets widely accepted. Or at least gets on The Discovery Channel quasi-science shows. 😛 Also, you have folks with vested interests (i.e. they are being paid by someone) to nitpick and even make stuff up to discount a theory as politically volatile as this one. A lot of ‘deniers’, IMHO, fall into this category. They are doing what vested interest ‘scientist’ types did about cigarettes…or even Evolution. Heck, they are still doing it in some of these cases. And that’s fine. The truth will win out in the end, IMHO, and eventually the denier types will discredit themselves to all but the fringe. To a certain degree we are where the folks proposing Evolutionary theory were during the Scopes Monkey Trial. Anyway, to all the rest who took exception to my Einstein reference, it was just an example…and one I chose for a specific reason. I DO think that it’s not a stretch that Einstein overturned the reigning Newtonian physics and put it on it’s head. That doesn’t mean that it completely invalidated Newtonian physics. And I don’t believe that the current AGW folks are in the same league. But I did think it was an amusing joke, so… 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/40 "2012-01-26T23:12:37Z")
Skeptics are always saying that there has been no recent warming, which can’t be further from the truth. Just because 2011 was cooler than 1998 doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been any warming over that period: [Koch-Funded Study Finds Recent Warming “On the High End”](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/30/356783/koch-fueled-study-finds-recent-warming-on-the-high-judith-curry/) > [@](#): > > Though it is sometimes argued that global warming has abated since the 1998 El Nino event (e.g. Easterling and Wehner 2009, Meehl et al. 2011), we find no evidence of this in the GHCN land data. Applying our analysis over the interval **1998 to 2010** , we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades. The 1998 meme is also largely based on the HADCRU dataset, which is well out of line with the others, showing the least warming not just in the past decade but over the whole record (FWIW, BEST also shows that the urban heat island effect and station errors are insignificant on a global scale). The fact that 2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record also shows that warming has continued regardless of yearly fluctuations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727.md?page=3)