# The Evidence Against Global Warming? READ BEFORE FLAMING! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897 "2009-03-18T16:00:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/21 "2009-03-18T22:51:10Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > After reading Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”… Don’t pay any more attention to Crichton than you would to Al Gore. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/22 "2009-03-18T23:20:39Z")
Of course the experts can never be [wrong.](http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1388007) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/23 "2009-03-18T23:30:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Well…the other side of that coin is that it’s not a popularity contest, and the majority of opinions in the scientific community can and have been wrong in the past. That’s why it annoys me so much when people try and dismiss ALL GW skepticism as crackpottery. Think about how long it took for something like General Relativity to be accepted by the majority of physicists and such in the field…or a theory like Evolution. It took decades, and basically they both overturned the earlier majority opinions. OK, show me something analogous to the 43 arcsecond/century anomalous precession of Mercury, and we’ll talk. General Relativity eventually won out because there were real, measurable phenomena explainable by GR which were not explainable by the other theories against which it was competing. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/24 "2009-03-18T23:33:31Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Of course the experts can never be [wrong.](http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1388007) So your contention, then, is that AGW is a big scam? Some worldwide conspiracy, perhaps? Or is there just one person behind it all? ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/25 "2009-03-18T23:36:15Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > So your contention, then, is that AGW is a big scam? Some worldwide conspiracy, perhaps? Yep. ---
**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:** [March 19, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/26 "2009-03-19T00:05:52Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] OK, show me something analogous to the 43 arcsecond/century anomalous precession of Mercury, and we’ll talk. General Relativity eventually won out because there were real, measurable phenomena explainable by GR which were not explainable by the other theories against which it was competing. [/QUOTE] Sure…but it didn’t win immediately. In fact, it took a long time before it finally ‘won’…when photos of the stars during a solar eclipse (in fact the SECOND set of photos, since earlier ones were not conclusive IIRC) finally showed conclusive proof. The point is, that the majority of the scientific community did NOT believe it until they were shown conclusive proof. Same with Darwin’s theories…it took decades before it became mainstream. This isn’t to say that the GW theories will eventually be disproved, or that some competing theory will eventually win out…it’s to show that science works by constantly testing and refining, and that sometimes the majority opinion among scientists in a given field are wrong. Do you disagree? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/27 "2009-03-19T01:58:47Z")
> [@](#): > > This isn’t to say that the GW theories will eventually be disproved, or that some competing theory will eventually win out…it’s to show that science works by constantly testing and refining, and that sometimes the majority opinion among scientists in a given field are wrong. Sure. But what do you do meanwhile? There’s no such thing as a proven theory, only one that hasn’t been disproven yet. Maybe tomorrow or next year, anthropogenic global warming will be disproven, but then again, maybe tomorrow or next year Maxwell’s equations will be disproven. Should we stop using Maxwell’s Equations now, just in case? ---
**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:** [March 19, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/28 "2009-03-19T02:03:14Z")
No, not at all…you go based on the best science you have and if you are a scientist in the field you keep pushing, searching, testing, etc etc. For GW you say that, yeah…as of today the best science definitely indicates that it’s real that the humans are a factor. I wasn’t trying to say we should test every crack pot theory or explore every possible digression or line of inquiry…just that simply because there is currently a scientific consensus in the related fields that this necessarily means that they have to be right. -XT ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/29 "2009-03-19T02:35:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Sure. But what do you do meanwhile? There’s no such thing as a proven theory, only one that hasn’t been disproven yet. I disagree. It seems to me that a theory or hypothesis can be proven (in a scientific sense) if it stands up to testing. Or if there is strong evidence supporting the theory. For example, most would agree that it’s been proven (in a scientific sense) that regular and signficiant smoking of cigarettes increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer. At best, the hypothesis which I refer to as “CAGW” has not been seriously tested and is not supported by strong evidence. In particular, the water vapor feedback part of the hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/30 "2009-03-19T02:40:33Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Think about how long it took for something like General Relativity to be accepted by the majority of physicists and such in the field…or a theory like Evolution. It took decades, and basically they both overturned the earlier majority opinions. But hasn’t global warming gone through this vetting process already? Think about how long it took for it to be so widely accepted, overturning other opinions. AGW deniers are more analogous to Intelligent Design supporters, relegated to criticizing the mainstream theory by nitpicking and by claiming institutional bias in academia. ---
**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:** [March 19, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/31 "2009-03-19T02:49:23Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] But hasn’t global warming gone through this vetting process already? Think about how long it took for it to be so widely accepted, overturning other opinions. AGW deniers are more analogous to Intelligent Design supporters, relegated to criticizing the mainstream theory by nitpicking and by claiming institutional bias in academia. [/QUOTE] Not all AGW skeptics are created equal. There are respected scientists who disagree with parts of the hypothesis. That’s what science is all about. Just like some AGW SUPPORTERS do so for political or other non-scientific reasons, some deniers do exactly the opposite…deny purely for political or other non-scientific reasons. But just like the SCIENTISTS who agree with part or all of the hypothesis, there are scientists who disagree with part or even all of the hypothesis. Personally, and from my own non-scientific perspective I DO think that the majority consensus is by and large correct. That said, I think that some of the data and models are a bit unformed or not as thoroughly tested as it will be in the course of time. I don’t believe that AGW is on par with a fully tested and vetted theory like Evolution or something like General or Special Relativity. YMMV of course, but I just don’t think that enough time has gone by and enough of the data and the models have been firmed up to bring AGW on par with those other, older, tested for decades theories. -XT ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/32 "2009-03-19T02:57:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Not all AGW skeptics are created equal. There are respected scientists who disagree with parts of the hypothesis. That’s what science is all about. Well of course, that’s why I said deniers, not skeptics. There are still scientists who spend their careers trying to disprove Einstein, and whether they succeed or fail, they add to the collective knowledge. The same is true for global warming. But those scientists are not the ones leading the public anti-AGW discourse. It’s the people with an agenda, who cherrypick the results or just outright lie to attack the mainstream idea. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/33 "2009-03-19T02:58:02Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [Climate change denial - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy) _shrugs_ I didn’t make it up. Michael Crichton is, indeed, one of the people advancing the theory, and he’s right there in the OP. How do you want me to argue with Michael Crichton if I’m not allowed to present Teh Loony. With due respect, you are rather blatantly misrepresenting the facts. The page you link you cites a number of people who all make varying claims about a conspiracy, and then mentions Crichton’s novel as containing a story that includes, as an important plot point, a conspiracy. However, the conspiracy in “State of Fear” is **not** the UN-new-world-order conspiracy being referred to by the other people cited in that Wikipedia entry; it’s a completely different thing made up for the novel. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/34 "2009-03-19T03:08:06Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I wrote a few blog posts on wordpress (brazil84 is my username there) explaining why I think CAGW is a hoax. Is linking to such a blog against the rules? Not at all. Linking to an information source, (even if it is solely to keep one from having to re-type one’s own words), is fine–as long as it addresses the issue and does not drag personal remarks into this thread. > [@scr4](#): > > But those scientists are not the ones leading the public anti-AGW discourse. It’s the people with an agenda, who cherrypick the results or just outright lie to attack the mainstream idea. This is an emotional appeal, based on a form of _ad hominem_ that is not really relevant to the discussion. Let’s at least wait until page three before we start hurling insults around as a way to poison the well. [/Modding] ---
**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:** [March 19, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/35 "2009-03-19T03:09:00Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] But those scientists are not the ones leading the public anti-AGW discourse. It’s the people with an agenda, who cherrypick the results or just outright lie to attack the mainstream idea. [/QUOTE] Sure…I agree. Of course, a lot of the folks who are pro-AGW are also people with an agenda…and also cherry pick their own sides facts to present a picture that is not the consensus of the majority of climate scientists. Even though they may be on the right side of the science doesn’t mean they are right. However, I was just pointing out in my earlier comments that a solid scientific consensus in any given field does not necessarily mean that in the long run this will remain so…that’s how we get a big scientific break through. Like I said earlier, look at Einstein and General/Special Relativity. His theories over turned centuries of Newtonian physics, and while adopted fairly early by the public it took a long time for the theoretical physics and related fields to accept the theories. And as you said, there are STILL scientists out there who are trying to disprove parts of the theory…or perhaps, a better way to put is they are testing and pushing that theory to make sure it IS completely correct. I think by and large you are right…many AGW skeptics are full of shit. But sometimes it annoys me the dismissal of ALL AGW skepticism or the casual way folks who aren’t scientists and aren’t climatologist just dismiss any kind of skepticism, or point at the current consensus as if this means it’s cast in concrete. Real science doesn’t work that way. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/36 "2009-03-19T03:24:15Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, show me something analogous to the 43 arcsecond/century anomalous precession of Mercury, and we’ll talk. General Relativity eventually won out because there were real, measurable phenomena explainable by GR which were not explainable by the other theories against which it was competing. This is the main point in the contention that the majority of scientists could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong, but so far no other theory seems to better explain what we are seeing. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/37 "2009-03-19T03:26:53Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > With due respect, you are rather blatantly misrepresenting the facts. The page you link you cites a number of people who all make varying claims about a conspiracy, and then mentions Crichton’s novel as containing a story that includes, as an important plot point, a conspiracy. However, the conspiracy in “State of Fear” is **not** the UN-new-world-order conspiracy being referred to by the other people cited in that Wikipedia entry; it’s a completely different thing made up for the novel. I did mention three different theories in my first post, eco-hippies, UN-new-world-order, and book deals. That there are possibly more than those three doesn’t detract from the point that there are various conspiracy theories which all are negated by the sheer number of professional scientists, the sheer mass of money spent on research, and the sheer amount of time that AGW has been competing against other theories. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/38 "2009-03-19T14:58:51Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Yep. Then my good friend Occam (he’s the guy with the razor- I think he was a barber or something) says you’re most likely wrong. People just aren’t that good at keeping secrets. A US President couldn’t keep a blowjob secret- there’s no way a global conspiracy of scientists would be able to keep something like AGW falsification secret. As a matter of fact, the only evidence we have of AGW falsification was on the part of the oil companies, when Exxon [funded](http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870) anti-AGW sentiment. Exxon, with billions of dollars, couldn’t hide something like that… yet climate researchers across the globe _can_? ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/39 "2009-03-19T16:16:09Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Then my good friend Occam (he’s the guy with the razor- I think he was a barber or something) says you’re most likely wrong. People just aren’t that good at keeping secrets. A US President couldn’t keep a blowjob secret- there’s no way a global conspiracy of scientists would be able to keep something like AGW falsification secret. > > As a matter of fact, the only evidence we have of AGW falsification was on the part of the oil companies, when Exxon [funded](http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870) anti-AGW sentiment. Exxon, with billions of dollars, couldn’t hide something like that… yet climate researchers across the globe _can_? I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy theory. I’m saying that it’s a money grab for a lot of people right now and that the whole AGW theory is false. There is a lot of funding going to people who are involved with this and in my opinion it’s money wasted. There are certainly reasons to be investing in alternate energy sources since oil will not last forever, but AGW is a ridiculous reason: 0.6 degrees C in a hundred years and we’re not even positive that the increase of 100 PPM of CO2 is responsible or not? Please… ---
**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:** [March 19, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/40 "2009-03-19T16:28:25Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy theory. I’m saying that it’s a money grab for a lot of people right now and that the whole AGW theory is false. There is a lot of funding going to people who are involved with this and in my opinion it’s money wasted. There are certainly reasons to be investing in alternate energy sources since oil will not last forever, but AGW is a ridiculous reason: 0.6 degrees C in a hundred years and we’re not even positive that the increase of 100 PPM of CO2 is responsible or not? Please… I will have to assume that your sources just minimize the problem. > **[CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)** > > \When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming... > [@](#): > > Climate sensitivity is defined as how much global temperature increase if we doubled CO2. Studies of past CO2 and temperature records have helped quantify how sensitive our climate is to changes in CO2. > > Temperature and various forcings (including CO2) over the past few centuries shows a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 6.2°C (Hegerl 2006). One study combines the results from various paleontological studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C (Annan 2006). Basically, multiple studies covering many different periods of earth’s history confirm that when CO2 is doubled, global temperatures go up around 3°C. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897.md?page=3)