I downmodded this because it's content-free ("Either AGW is real, or it's not. Maybe we should find out.") and it's sprinkled with emotionally-laden words like "scam" and "conspiracy theorists." I don't think it's good to approach a flamewar-prone topic like that.
It is real or it is not is simply indicating that I think that as far as the science is concerned this is still an open question, even though you can find plenty of stuff out there which states with great levels of certitude that it is the one or the other, I simply disagree with that.
As for the conspiracy theorists, yes, I really do believe they will be all over this, any high profile person that would use words like "It is of course, the global warming scam" (which came directly from the article) is going to find their words quoted forever by those that would rather deny the possibility of this somehow being effected by humanity.
I'm on the fence I'd like to know but I don't, anybody that is yelling 'scam' or 'for sure' is most likely pushing an agenda.
So I'm all for science to be done here preferably in as independent a style as possible with a strong accent on transparency.
Why do you say you're on the fence when you characterize those who are skeptical of the AGW theory as "conspiracy theorists"?
As an aside, I find this characterization generally amusing because it seems to come from an assumption that conspiracies are so rare as to not be worth considering. The climategate scandal is a pretty clear conspiracy. In fact, the review policy of APS that he's objecting to is a conspiracy. I think it would be hard to argue that conspiracies are rare. Every time more than one person cooperates to hide, obscure or perpetuate a fraud, it is a conspiracy. APS's policies that affect selection of papers based on a pre-scientific conclusion are in effect a fraudulent distortion of the state of the art in physics.
Being skeptical is one thing, categorically dismissing each and every finding of fact as cooked up to manufacture a story that has not rational basis is quite another.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but not everybody gets to have their own facts.
Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact, enough evidence that is beyond reproach of any kind is left that we can safely conclude that this is apparently really so.
What remains is whether - and if so to what extent - we are contributory to this and regardless of whether we are if this is something that we can do something about it and if we should (assuming that we can).
Conspiracy theorists reject the whole thing out of hand and make it seem as though all of it, evidence included was made up. That puts them right out there with the people that don't believe men ever walked on the moon.
There are conspiracy theorists on both sides of this debate, and somewhere in the middle you will find people working hard - and not all of them because they are on the payroll of an institution with an agenda- to try to find out what is really going on.
> Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact, enough evidence that is beyond reproach of any kind is left that we can safely conclude that this is apparently really so.
Relativity is a theory, even though it has been experimentally verified. Newtonian mechanics and the luminiferous aether are also theories.
Gravity, global warming (on any given timescale), the freezing point of water, and the presence of little green men on Mars are facts.
But in order to conclude that global warming is a true fact, you need to specify it better. "The earth was warmer at the end of 2008 than at the end of 2005" is false[1]; "the earth was warmer at the end of 2009 than at the end of 1999" is true; "the earth was warmer at the end of 2008 than at the end of 1988" depends on whether you're talking about monthly (true) or trailing-12-months (false) measurements. If you pick your date range right, you can get any truth-value you want.
>Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but not everybody gets to have their own facts.
>Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact,
It seems you feel you are entitled to your own facts. The fact of the matter is, the planet is getting cooler, in recent history, due to the abatement of the solar peak, despite CO2 increasing. These facts are easily verified and disprove your "global warming is fact" claim.
IF you go back far enough you can find that the earth has been warming since the last Ice age. If you go back further you can find that the earth has gone thru many of these cycles, including having CO2 rise as the temperature rises, even before there were human societies.
I believe you believe in this "fact" because it is a religion to you, and you believe in it like christians believe in jesus. Thus, you are the target of your own criticism of rejecting things out of hand.
IF you were being the least bit honest, you would recognize that global warming is a theory. And a very dubious one at that, with a long history of fabrication and dishonesty behind it, that originated in political, not scientific circles and which shows a clear political purpose.
The politicians have the motive- to gain extraordinary control over the economy. They have the opportunity- control over scientific funding and a clear mandate to defund projects that are not consistent with global warming theory. And a history of falsifications and other frauds coming to light.
This makes you a religious zealot who thinks that simply calling something a "fact" is some sort of an argument.
