The Worst Defense of Global Warming?

Here's one of the worst defenses of global warming I've seen.  Their logic is "proclaim it and it's true".

 http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/climate_myths/no-consensus-on-climate-change.html

I'll call this link Colorado.edu from here on.

Colorado.edu says:

"As with all science, there is some uncertainty associated with the science of climate change. Often this is taken to mean that no scientific consensus on climate change exists and that the science is not solid yet. In fact, there is scientific consensus on many aspects of climate change, including the statement that most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely (>90% probability) caused by anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (IPCC 2007)."

I say:

So the thousands of scientists who disagree with you don't count in your consensus? 

31,487 scientists disagree here: http://www.petitionproject.org/

700 scientists disagree here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

a few disagree here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

and 800 peer reviewed papers that disagree are linked here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Colorado.edu says:

A scientific theory must be testable; others must be able to test the theory and be able to prove whether it is false. It only takes one contradictory observation to necessitate a change in a theory. Good science is an unbiased and unprejudiced inquiry into some phenomenon—it does not have a political or economic agenda.

I say:

Exactly.  So how do we test global warming caused by CO2?  Where's our control planet?  Why do they ignore all the contradictory observations?  Have we seen an area of science that has more bias, prejudice, political influence, and scandal than global warming supporters?  Ok, pharmaceuticals. 

Colorado.edu says:

If people simply say that they do not believe the evidence pointing toward climate change, that is not good science; they must produce factual evidence that corroborates that belief.

I say:

Changing data to support a theory is not science.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced 

And ignoring factual evidence that disputes their manmade CO2 global warming theory isn't science either.

Colorado.edu says:

In addition, any alternative hypothesis must be testable, so that it can be proven whether it is false.

I say:

Is the theory that the sun's varying output resulting in global temperature changes not testable?  Or haven't these guys heard of it?  Can't we measure both sides and compare trends between the two theories?  We don't have to change the output of the sun.  We only have to record data and compare to determine if a causal relationship exists. 

Colorado.edu says:

Thus far, scientists have produced only one testable theory for why global average surface temperatures have been rising in the last half century: human-induced climate change. No significant evidence-based challenge to the theory has been developed. Because the evidence, as judged by peer-reviewed scientific publications, builds up—rather than pokes holes in—the theory, it currently stands as scientific consensus. No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a dissenting opinion on climate change.

I say:

So they are defending their complete ignorance?

Colorado.edu says:

For more information on consensus around climate change, please visit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I say:

And for opposing viewpoints, you're on your own.  Their self-proclaimed consensus is pretty one sided.  They don't offer any links to opposing theories.  They didn't mention one opposing theory or any evidence to discount such theories.   

Originally posted January 3, 2011