# Question for Climate Skeptics

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727>\
**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:** 9\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 29, 2012, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/101 "2012-01-29T03:19:44Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Do you mean it isn’t true? Aren’t there many corrections (many/most scientifically necessary) done to actual observations?  
> One agains, you come to the point of “other guys say it”, I don’t care. “Other guys” are not in the thread.

The context is key, **those corrections are normal and excellent science** , the only reason that bit was made to sound like it was controversial (for what cause then?) was precisely to seed doubts on what what the scientists were doing, **and there was no controversy on that** , even less so after the BEST survey of those adjustments. Deniers adding it (and once again only by consulting denialist sites is that you would had concluded this was controversial) have no other reason to mention it other than to push a controversy or unnecessary doubts.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> When did I mention “higher profits”?  
> When did I say “not do anything due to short term economical reasons”?  
> Most interestingly, you didn’t actually answer the question so I’ll ask it again: Doesn’t everyone have an agenda?

Again history does make a mockery of this point, people like Calendar and Plass never had an agenda or profited from the work they did showing that most scientists were wrong in assuming that the increase of human CO2 was going to be deal by nature and that there was nothing to worry about.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Oh, please, not another skepticalscience link. Can you at least mention the salient points of the link. I’m too old to be getting lots of reading homework.

As you still ignore the salient points of what Oreskes said (and they are related to this tread BTW) your request here is silly.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> You may check them, but your answer always comes back to “it’s a denialist place” + skepticalsicence link, rather than “the levels of Oxygen18 in the andean sample from the 17th centuty didn’t rise 23%, they simply rose 8%” and then link

This affirmation has no basis in reality, on the previous discussion I even cited the science that discredited your silly citation. It is you who has demonstrated to rely on denialist sources and ignore the science.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Since it’s the first time you mention Ms. Oreskes it is evident that I did not deal with that. I’ll check it.

Only that I did quoted her before, so your excuses are getting silly.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Did I mention conspiracies?

It is the OP’s subject, stop hijacking this.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> How did CO2science misrepresent science? Do you have an example? I like the site so it’ll be interesting to see if they are not telling the truth.

As pointed out before you ignored the citation I made to you and happily continue to ignore it, making others realize how you willfully skip information, first you quoted this:

> **[CO2 Science](https://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php)**
>
> A weekly review and repository of scientific research findings pertaining to carbon dioxide and global change.

The only published science paper they cite, independent from their own, says the opposite of what they claim.

[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14248297&postcount=291](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14248297&postcount=291)

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> I didn’t base it on Climategate and have used the argument before it.  
> I don’t think there has to be any nefarious activities and, consequently, never have mentioned malice. My point is that there in great uncertainty in the ammount that each factor need to be corrected and in some cases even the sigh of the correction and when corrections (which, as I’ve mentioned before, are necessary in many/most cases) end up being some much more than the original signal, the mathematician/statistician in me needs to be comforted.

And in this context this is like reporting that water is wet to an oceanographer, sorry, it is clear that the idea is to make others doubt for no good reason whatsoever.  
Of course since denialist sites like to use that point, and no, they do not clarify it to then make it apparent that the point is really a silly one once the explanation is made; it is a tactic that depends on not finding an opponent in a discussion that is aware of it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\
**Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/102 "2012-01-29T05:17:09Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> The context is key, **those corrections are normal and excellent science** , the only reason that bit was made to sound like it was controversial (for what cause then?) was precisely to seed doubts on what what the scientists were doing, **and there was no controversy on that** , even less so after the BEST survey of those adjustments. Deniers adding it (and once again only by consulting denialist sites is that you would had concluded this was controversial) have no other reason to mention it other than to push a controversy or unnecessary doubts.

Nice that we agree that there are many corrections.  
I don’t flatter myself that I can cast doubt on what scientists are doing. I have read the reviews and haven’t found them convincing to me.  
The BEST survety surveyes the guys already agreeing with the corrections and not that many (basically none) who questioned them.

> [@](#):
>
> Again history does make a mockery of this point, people like Calendar and Plass never had an agenda or profited from the work they did showing that most scientists were wrong in assuming that the increase of human CO2 was going to be deal by nature and that there was nothing to worry about.

They had the non-nefarious agenda of showing the truth, they didn’t do it for kicks. They wanted to show the reality of CO2 increase and correct those who were mistaken, there’s the agenda: truth.  
Interesting that you yourself mention that most scientists, long beofre denialists or big-oil money, thought something and were incorrect. I’m sure a poll would’ve shown large numbers against Plass’s stuff and maybe someone said “the consemsus says Plass is wrong”.  
This of course doesn’t mean by any stretch that that majority of scientist weres stupid or ignorant.  
Also, the fact that is the past the consensus was wrong doesn’t mean or even imply that the present super-majority is wrong. When you got such gigantic numbers in favour it is the job of the contrarians to conclusively show why all those scientists wrong.

> [@](#):
>
> As you still ignore the salient points of what Oreskes said (and they are related to this tread BTW) your request here is silly.

The answer then is no, I didn’t mention them.  
Ooops, I didn’t remember seeing Oreskes, I apologise, sorry.:smack:  
I would say she’s basically right, there are people with profit-before-anything-else in their minds who want to do whatever is in their power to get even more profit. I am also clearly aware that some of my ideas (would, could) play into their hands and that, of course, gives me pause.  
I still have my scpeticism but it’s always good to be vigilant of not being fed by nefarious organisations/people who, in other areas go against my main concern about general well-being.

> [@](#):
>
> This affirmation has no basis in reality, on the previous discussion I even cited the science that discredited your silly citation. It is you who has demonstrated to rely on denialist sources and ignore the science.

Post 98: denialist baloney (content-free)  
Post 100: denialist boilerplate (content-free)  
Post 58: The rest is just unfounded points and denials (content-free)  
Post 84: taken out of context by deniers (content-free)

Post 89: it is in reality the efforts of the deniers that convince many that there is a problem. (well, what do you expect?)  
Post 95: typical of denier site(you send me to a ten minute video on cars by an activist graphic designer)  
…and so on.  
Maybe if you stopped with the “it’s a denialist site” and simply said “x is wrong” it would help the debate.

> [@](#):
>
> Only that I did quoted her before, so your excuses are getting silly.

Apologised:smack::smack::smack:

> [@](#):
>
> It is the OP’s subject, stop hijacking this.

So, again the answer is i didn’t mention it.  
I’ll say (again): I don’t think there is a nefarious conspiracy in the great majority AGW proposers.

> [@](#):
>
> As pointed out before you ignored the citation I made to you and happily continue to ignore it, making others realize how you willfully skip information, first you quoted this:
> 
> [CO2 Science](http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php)
> 
> The only published science paper they cite, independent from their own, says the opposite of what they claim.
> 
> [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14248297&postcount=291](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14248297&postcount=291)

The CO2 science experiemtent is about the survial of coral larvae and polyps  
The study you mention, which contradicts it only in part the other, talks about calcification in long-term studies. I think you wanted to link to [this page](http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/calcification.php). In that page they cite “_Likewise, Langdon et al. (2000) calculate a decrease in coral calcification rate of up to 40% between 1880 and 2065_.” Then they mention it’s wrong because they claim that ther is more to coral calcification than CO2 concentration and that there are biologicaly and biochemically driven aspects (It’d be good to have more than Langdon’s abstract to see in detail). I can’t see how mentioning word-by-word the most damning position made by your opponent is a misrepresentation.  
I fully accept that they may be wrong (I haven’t read more than the abstracts) but I fully deny the charge of misrepresentation.

> [@](#):
>
> And in this context this is like reporting that water is wet to an oceanographer, sorry, it is clear that the idea is to make others doubt for no good reason whatsoever.
> 
> Of course since denialist sites like to use that point, and no, they do not clarify it to then make it apparent that the point is really a silly one once the explanation is made; it is a tactic that depends on not finding an opponent in a discussion that is aware of it.

I have a couple of cite from denialist places. Please respond to the actual data.  
[The first one is a classic](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/11/more-gunsmoke-this-time-in-nepal/). Broken records, averaging two other stations to fill the gap and a whoppin 0.9°C per decade increase.  
[“Dropped” minus signs in adjustments.](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/giss-metar-dial-m-for-missing-minus-signs-its-worse-than-we-thought/)  
McIntyre makes interesting points with lots of data [here](http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/01/hansen-and-false-local-adjustments/), [here](http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/01/positive-and-negative-urban-adjustments/), [here](http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/02/atmoz-agrees-on-ushcn-adjustment-defect/), [here](http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/12/the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving-continued/).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 29, 2012, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/103 "2012-01-29T06:37:33Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Nice that we agree that there are many corrections.  
> I don’t flatter myself that I can cast doubt on what scientists are doing. I have read the reviews and haven’t found them convincing to me.  
> The BEST survety surveyes the guys already agreeing with the corrections and not that many (basically none) who questioned them.

And of course, as you claim that there is a problem you should realize that one big reason scientists found that there is a problem is thanks to the evidence that this data shows.

So make up your mind, there is a problem or there is not. As mentioned to the other fellow, you should fight it with yourself and not with the researchers that already checked the corrections and their validity.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> They had the non-nefarious agenda of showing the truth, they didn’t do it for kicks. They wanted to show the reality of CO2 increase and correct those who were mistaken, there’s the agenda: truth.  
> Interesting that you yourself mention that most scientists, long beofre denialists or big-oil money, thought something and were incorrect. I’m sure a poll would’ve shown large numbers against Plass’s stuff and maybe someone said “the consemsus says Plass is wrong”.  
> This of course doesn’t mean by any stretch that that majority of scientist weres stupid or ignorant.  
> Also, the fact that is the past the consensus was wrong doesn’t mean or even imply that the present super-majority is wrong. When you got such gigantic numbers in favour it is the job of the contrarians to conclusively show why all those scientists wrong.

And the contrarians have spectacularly failed to convince most scientists as the evidence shows. Now contrarians resort to misleading information and seeding doubts to the public.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> The answer then is no, I didn’t mention them.  
> Ooops, I didn’t remember seeing Oreskes, I apologise, sorry.:smack:  
> I would say she’s basically right, there are people with profit-before-anything-else in their minds who want to do whatever is in their power to get even more profit. I am also clearly aware that some of my ideas (would, could) play into their hands and that, of course, gives me pause.  
> I still have my scpeticism but it’s always good to be vigilant of not being fed by nefarious organisations/people who, in other areas go against my main concern about general well-being.

That is good, but you have to ramp up your pause, as much as you malign Skeptical Science, the name it got came from being skeptical of the contrarians.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Post 98: denialist baloney (content-free)  
> Post 100: denialist boilerplate (content-free)  
> Post 58: The rest is just unfounded points and denials (content-free)  
> Post 84: taken out of context by deniers (content-free)
> 
> Post 89: it is in reality the efforts of the deniers that convince many that there is a problem. (well, what do you expect?)  
> Post 95: typical of denier site(you send me to a ten minute video on cars by an activist graphic designer)  
> …and so on.  
> Maybe if you stopped with the “it’s a denialist site” and simply said “x is wrong” it would help the debate.

Nah, one of the things I have found is that if you actually understood what you bring to the plate you should be able to find valid support elsewhere, when it is hard to come by it is because you have not applied enough skepticism to the say so of the deniers.

But the nest way to demonstrate that your Gish gallop here is silly one just needs to look at the post 98, unless you did not pay attention and were just enjoying yourself as you point out, you should had remembered that on previous discussions it is impossible to avoid the fact that this point of “a gigantic ammount of corrections to the actual observations.” is coming from the repeated attempts at claiming that the data is unreliable.

One of the first attempts was that the urban heat island effect was trowing the results out of whack and the adjustments made by the scientists (that were aware of that already of the effect)

> **[Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?](https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm)**
>
> While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.

(Brohan et al., 2006)

> [@](#):
>
> That there are hardly any differences between the six series tells us several things. Small datasets of 40 stations show the same result as the 728 station dataset. In other words, for a region of this size, the average can be constructed from a limited number of sites, implying that for the 728 station network there is considerable redundancy.
> 
> As the scale increases, the overall impact of homogeneity adjustments diminishes. This might be a bit heartbreaking for those hard working boffins who spend hundreds of hours pouring meticulously over station data, ensuring the data is all homogenised (but of course, they don’t do it just to calculate global trends).
> 
> And of course, the most significant finding: the trend is the same for both urban and rural groups over any of the periods. Even in the case of developing urban areas, when averaged out over large areas, urban heat island has little impact on the warming trend.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> So, again the answer is i didn’t mention it.  
> I’ll say (again): I don’t think there is a nefarious conspiracy in the great majority AGW proposers.

So, there is not much need to continue then in this thread, as the subject is to demand contrarians to explain why they rely so much on conspiracy theories to get their point across… like still pushing the idea that there is actually a point on saying that there is a gigantic amount of adjustment made.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> The CO2 science experiemtent is about the survial of coral larvae and polyps  
> The study you mention, which contradicts it only in part the other, talks about calcification in long-term studies. I think you wanted to link to [this page](http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/calcification.php). In that page they cite “_Likewise, Langdon et al. (2000) calculate a decrease in coral calcification rate of up to 40% between 1880 and 2065_.” Then they mention it’s wrong because they claim that ther is more to coral calcification than CO2 concentration and that there are biologicaly and biochemically driven aspects (It’d be good to have more than Langdon’s abstract to see in detail). I can’t see how mentioning word-by-word the most damning position made by your opponent is a misrepresentation.  
> I fully accept that they may be wrong (I haven’t read more than the abstracts) but I fully deny the charge of misrepresentation.

The problem is that their opinion is not published on a peer reviewed yournal, they base their say so’s on their own very little supported work, indeed they are coming from what was pointed out in the past, from an idea (a false one) that researchers are conspiring to prevent contrarian researchers from getting published, so then they go the bloglessor way. Sorry, but one has to go for the published peer reviewed science, if they want to show the scientific paper is wrong by denying that CO2 will affect the ocean ecosystems, they need to walk the plank and be reviewed independently from their denialist bubbles.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> I have a couple of cite from denialist places. Please respond to the actual data.  
> [The first one is a classic](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/11/more-gunsmoke-this-time-in-nepal/). Broken records, averaging two other stations to fill the gap and a whoppin 0.9°C per decade increase.

Classic baloney from Willis Eschenbach (this was pointed out by Tamino at Open Mind, and as Willis has not dignified on publish that on a peer reviewed site then it is good to look at what others can see as the main reasons why Willis will not publish, his ideas can be shot down very quickly.

> **[Dog days in Nepal | The Blackboard](https://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/dog-days-in-nepal/)**

> [@](#):
>
> Willis spends much of his article focusing on GISTemp’s UHI adjustments to the site between 1961-1980. I’ll cover this quickly, but its really not germane to the main question at hand, mainly because the IPCC does not use GISTemp. NASA’s primary adjustment to GHCN data (outside the U.S., where they use USHCN data) is their UHI correction procedure. Per Hansen et al 2010, their UHI adjustment procedure:
> 
> “…uses nearby rural stations to define the long-term trends while allowing the local urban station to define high frequency variations, nominally as described by Hansen et al. [1999], but with details as follows. If an urban station has at least three rural stations within 500 km, all of these are used for the adjustment with closer stations receiving greater weight, as described above. If there are not three stations within 500 km, but there are three or more stations within 1000 km, these stations are used for the adjustment. The mean temperature trend of the rural stations is computed as a two-segment broken line, as in Hansen et al. [1999] but the knee of the broken line is variable (rather than being fixed at 1950) chosen so as to minimize the difference between the urban and rural records.”
> 
> The net effect of this procedure globally is to slightly lower the trend vis-a-vis using all raw data. I imagine our friends at NASA would readily admit that this does not produce the most accurate estimate of actual temperatures for any given individual station, but will result in more accurate regional and global trends by reducing the impact of stations in urban areas.

> [@](#):
>
> We find that, for GHCN, that the trend over the last 19 (or fewer) years is greater than or equal to 0.9 C per decade. For the GSOD record, the past 30 years have a trend that exceeds 0.9 C per decade. While the trend is smaller for the full series (0.17 C per decade from 1951-present for GHCN, 0.67 C per decade from 1976 to present for GSOD), it is clear that Nepal is warming faster than the global land average, especially over the past few decades.

And only after checking that one then comes the dismissal, it is clear that once again you are just Gish Galloping and Google Vomiting, show us that you can discriminate the bad sources from the bad and what are the main items on the rest, because as just the first example shows, with sites like Watts up With That and Climate Audit they do not deserve any attention when they never correct their baloney and even deny that their reason for being got shot down several years ago, even before the BEST results came out.

[http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/#more-67](http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/#more-67)

[![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/dcxVwEfq4bM/maxresdefault.jpg "Watts Up With Watts?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\
**Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/104 "2012-01-30T01:31:41Z")

</div>

> [@Stelios](#):
>
> How is this hoax being maintained?

Mainly through a bait and switch. The phrase “anthropogenic climate change theory” is ambiguous.

> [@](#):
>
> _Why_ was this conspiracy ever enacted in the first place?

Groupthink does not require a conspiracy so your question makes a bad assumption.

> [@](#):
>
> And why, if Climate Scientists are so dishonourable, have none ever stepped forward with conclusive proof that AGW is a hoax in order to cash in?

No proof exists which would satisfy the folks who are so heavily invested in believing the global warming hoax.

> [@](#):
>
> and that intellectual honesty demands they side with the balance of evidence as the scientific community have done.

What EXACTLY is the position of the “scientific community”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\
**Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/105 "2012-01-30T01:42:13Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> And of course, as you claim that there is a problem you should realize that one big reason scientists found that there is a problem is thanks to the evidence that this data shows.
> 
> So make up your mind, there is a problem or there is not. As mentioned to the other fellow, you should fight it with yourself and not with the researchers that already checked the corrections and their validity.

By Agamemnon’s inflamed tonsils!!! Haven’t I said theire is a problem enough times!!!  
Fight it with myself, sure, all the time.

> [@](#):
>
> And the contrarians have spectacularly failed to convince most scientists as the evidence shows. Now contrarians resort to misleading information and seeding doubts to the public.

Basically agreed on the first idea.  
Disagree on the second.

> [@](#):
>
> That is good, but you have to ramp up your pause, as much as you malign Skeptical Science, the name it got came from being skeptical of the contrarians.

It’s a bad sign when you decide (even if you’re always right) only to be skeptical of one side.

> [@](#):
>
> Nah, one of the things I have found is that if you actually understood what you bring to the plate you should be able to find valid support elsewhere, when it is hard to come by it is because you have not applied enough skepticism to the say so of the deniers.
> 
> But the nest way to demonstrate that your Gish gallop here is silly one just needs to look at the post 98, unless you did not pay attention and were just enjoying yourself as you point out, you should had remembered that on previous discussions it is impossible to avoid the fact that this point of “a gigantic ammount of corrections to the actual observations.” is coming from the repeated attempts at claiming that the data is unreliable.
> 
> One of the first attempts was that the urban heat island effect was trowing the results out of whack and the adjustments made by the scientists (that were aware of that already of the effect)
> 
> [Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm)
> 
> (Brohan et al., 2006)

Two points are beyond controversy.  
**1) The orignial data has a lot of corrections.**  
**2) The raw data needs corrections.**  
As I have mentioned many times before, scientific research data usually needs to be modified for perfectly valid scientific reasons, is standard operating procedure. I worked in polling and from the raw numbers we had to adjust for sex, age, socioeconomic groups, so that the final data was different from the original. This is absolutely normal and nobody with even a little knowledge can deny it; so please get this point: the fact that I complain about the corrections is not an indictment of the fact that correctin are used/needed.  
I am personally unconvinced as to a small partof the methodology and, of course, do not think that the guys at NOAA are losing sleep because of that fact.  
Your constant debating tactic is to paint all the AGW sceptics as ignorant and/or and the you colour anything the sceptic says with that idea.  
A sceptic says “look at this weather station that was malfunctioning for 10 years and still got its data into the studies”, and the station was really malfunctioning and it did get into the studies, your answer is “all denialists want to make people believe that stations are wrong” and then post a link to a generic answer about “denier hate stations”.

If panting me as an evil ignorant makes you sleep better, go ahead.  
You’re still wrong on both counts, but, what the hell, sleep tight.

> [@](#):
>
> So, there is not much need to continue then in this thread, as the subject is to demand contrarians to explain why they rely so much on conspiracy theories to get their point across… like still pushing the idea that there is actually a point on saying that there is a gigantic amount of adjustment made.

If you don’t want to continue, I’ll be sad. i always get a kick reading your posts.  
The OP was incredibly narrow in the definition and there is no debate possible: none of the SMDB sceptics believes in the conspiracy.

> [@](#):
>
> The problem is that their opinion is not published on a peer reviewed yournal, they base their say so’s on their own very little supported work, indeed they are coming from what was pointed out in the past, from an idea (a false one) that researchers are conspiring to prevent contrarian researchers from getting published, so then they go the bloglessor way. Sorry, but one has to go for the published peer reviewed science, if they want to show the scientific paper is wrong by denying that CO2 will affect the ocean ecosystems, they need to walk the plank and be reviewed independently from their denialist bubbles.

And is your youtube channel peer-reviewed? My demolition of your “CO” science misrepresents"  
**Fisheries science** isn’t peer-reviewed? it looks prett decent.  
Kelypas published in Science  
“Natural History” is iffy?  
“Global and Planetary change” is peer-reviewd.  
"Journal of Experimental and Marine Biology and Ecology " non-kosher  
(I can go on)

or is it your point that the website itself isn’t peer-reviewed- Because, if that’s your point then: goose, meet gander.

> [@](#):
>
> Classic baloney from Willis Eschenbach (this was pointed out by Tamino at Open Mind, and as Willis has not dignified on publish that on a peer reviewed site then it is good to look at what others can see as the main reasons why Willis will not publish, his ideas can be shot down very quickly.
> 
> [http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/dog-days-in-nepal/](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/dog-days-in-nepal/)

Haven’t people critiqued it?

> [@](#):
>
> And only after checking that one then comes the dismissal, it is clear that once again you are just Gish Galloping and Google Vomiting, show us that you can discriminate the bad sources from the bad and what are the main items on the rest, because as just the first example shows, with sites like Watts up With That and Climate Audit they do not deserve any attention when they never correct their baloney and even deny that their reason for being got shot down several years ago, even before the BEST results came out.
> 
> [http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/#more-67](http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/#more-67)
> 
> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player\_embedded&v=dcxVwEfq4bM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dcxVwEfq4bM)

“Gish Galloping and Google Vomiting”, what’s next? Cooties?  
“Do not deserve attention”, classic. You mean “does not deserve attention” like the Y2K thingy?  
Who, oh who brought that up and got the correction?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 30, 2012, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/106 "2012-01-30T01:47:29Z")

</div>

> [@brazil84](#):
>
> Mainly through a bait and switch. The phrase “anthropogenic climate change theory” is ambiguous.
> 
> Groupthink does not require a conspiracy so your question makes a bad assumption.
> 
> No proof exists which would satisfy the folks who are so heavily invested in believing the global warming hoax.

And as they have even less support and reach at NASA and many organizations that do count they are even more irrelevant. Might as well that they should go watch paint dry.

> [@brazil84](#):
>
> What EXACTLY is the position of the “scientific community”?

Courtesy of the Bad Astronomer:  
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/)

> [@](#):
>
> The study is called the Berkeley Earth Project (BEP), and what they found was stated simply and beautifully in their own two-page summary:
> 
> \*\* Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1° C since the mid-1950s.\*\*
> 
> Wow. Of course, I would change one word in there. Can you guess what it is? The answer is below.
> 
> Big deal
> 
> Now, we’ve known this for a while. Study after study has shown that the Earth is warming, that the past decade has been the hottest on record, and that the rise in temperature has been about a degree. So what’s the big deal here?
> 
> The big deal is that this was an independent team of researchers who conducted the study (including, interestingly, Saul Perlmutter, who just won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, and knows a thing or two about data analysis), and whose funding was overwhelmingly donated by the private sector and not from any government. The study was initiated by Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, who was concerned that government researchers weren’t being as open as possible with their methods. **He gathered together a team of scientists, and they used data from 39,000 temperature stations around the world, far more than the previous studies. They have put all their data and methodology online for anyone to investigate.**
> 
> And if you’re wondering who these private groups were, they’re listed on the BEP website. \*\*The largest single donor? Why, it’s the Koch brothers, über-conservatives who have pumped millions of dollars into climate change denial. I find that… interesting.
> 
> Anyone claiming that climate scientists are alarmists only trying to protect their grant money will have to think about that one for a while.\*\*

Now that is for the temperature record, now, what about the reasons why it is warming so much now?

> **[Causes - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/)**
>
> Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results

> [@](#):
>
> In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.
> 
> The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there’s a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 30, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/107 "2012-01-30T02:07:17Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> By Agamemnon’s inflamed tonsils!!! Haven’t I said theire is a problem enough times!!!  
> Fight it with myself, sure, all the time.

And the rest of your post shows, it is a nice time waster for you and it is a proper effort for the Yellow Submarine’s nowhere man, making plans for no one.

The point of this thread for you is to indeed seed doubt of one of the main reasons why scientists think there is a problem, if you are incapable of seeing that keeping on insisting on this after the BEST review of that data and stations, then it is clear to all that you are indeed fighting with yourself and convincing no one.

Of course now that you see how silly that effort was it is important to pretend it was not a big deal, but of course that was not your original point so this new say so that you are just unconvinced as to a small part of the methodology makes silly the idea to say originally that it was a huge controversial thing among the scientists.

Getting back to subject, as now we have one poster here that still proposes that this is a hoax, our Bad Astronomer has a review of what scientists are doing against the proponents of that hoax that are wasting time and even Tax payer money pushing that hoax.

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-againt-global-warming-denialism/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-againt-global-warming-denialism/)

> [@](#):
>
> It’s a truism that whenever I write about the solid fact that the Earth is warming up, that post will get comments that make it clear that denialists — and please read that link before commenting on my use of the word — are like religious zealots, writing the same tired long-debunked arguments that are usually debunked in the very post they’re commenting on.
> 
> Still, we press on. The noise machine only wins if they can outshout reality, so it’s important to keep writing about it. Here are five news items about climate change that might help mitigate the nonsense.
> 
> 1. Last week, I posted the results from studies showing 2011 was the 9th hottest year on record. Forbes online has more information on this. They take a different tack on it, but get the same results I do: the Earth is warming up, and humans are why.
> 
> 2. Some very welcome news: the National Center for Science Education — who for years have been at the forefront of battling creationists getting their “curriculum” into schools — is adding climate change to their syllabus. At that link they have well-written descriptions of the problem, how to teach about climate change, and how take action against denialism.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Apropos of that, some good news in the fight: the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund — which helps raise money for beleagured scientists under attack by denialists — has a new home: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). PEER will provide sponsorship and logistical support for the fund. Money raised goes to help defray the costs of legal fees for scientists who are the subjects of the above-mentioned witch hunts. The CSLDF also helps educate scientists about their rights, recruits lawyers to help out, and serves as an information database related to legal actions against scientists.
> 
> Wanna help? Donate to the fund here.
> 
> 1. … and apropos of that, it’s nice to see scientists fighting back, too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\
**Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/108 "2012-01-30T02:49:47Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> The point of this thread for you is to **indeed seed doubt of one of the main reasons why scientists think there is a problem** , if you are incapable of seeing that keeping on insisting on this after the BEST review of that data and stations, then it is clear to all that you are indeed fighting with yourself and convincing no one.

(my bolding)  
Nope, that’s the point you wished I had and against which you debate, i.e. your debate against “generic denier”.  
I debate a specific deluded warmist: you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 30, 2012, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727/109 "2012-01-30T03:00:09Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> (my bolding)  
> Nope, that’s the point you wished I had and against which you debate, i.e. your debate against “generic denier”.  
> I debate a specific deluded warmist: you.

So therefore there is not really much of a problem with the data, was this trip to fess up to the fact that there was really no controversy on the adjustments really necessary?

Incidentally your last dig shows that indeed your say so’s that claim to acknowledge that there is a problem are just smoke screens, it is clear for others to see what your intentions are.  
But enough beating around the bush arguments from you. Getting back to the point, as you agree with Oreskes we have to check once again with her what we should be doing.

> **[The verdict is in on climate change](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2012-jan-22-la-oe-oreskes-judging-climate-change-20120122-story.html)**
>
> The verdict is in on climate change

> [@](#):
>
> Consider for a moment the case against tobacco. There too scientists were nearly unanimous in their conclusion, based on research, that tobacco use had serious health consequences. Meanwhile, the tobacco industry tried to play the role of defense attorney, offering up denials and dodges and pseudo-scientific studies denying a link between smoking and lung cancer. So how did Americans decide whom to believe?
> 
> In that case, there was a judge whose instructions had a large effect on public consciousness: the U.S. surgeon general. Without a scientist general to instruct us on climate change, we as a nation have been adrift, looking for leadership and not finding it.
> 
> But enough of your silliness, as you agree with what Oreskes says, we should once again check what she is saying about the issue at hand:
> 
> But there is one notable exception: California. In the absence of federal leadership, in the absence of a scientist general, our state has acted on the scientific verdict. Both our current Democratic and our previous Republican governor understood the need for brisk action on climate change to prevent costly damage, and they have also seen economic opportunities available to those offering solutions. This bipartisan effort has made a difference.
> 
> As we enter 2012, California is the only state in the nation to be implementing controls on greenhouse gas emissions. As of Jan. 1, California has adopted a legal framework to reduce such emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and ultimately achieve an 80% reduction by 2050.
> 
> It is possible to move forward, even without a judge in black robes telling us what to do.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-climate-skeptics/610727.md?page=5)