Burden of Proof

Juror #2: "It's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word 'go.' Nobody proved otherwise.
Juror #8: "Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution
--12 Angry Men

Professor Anderson offers thoughtful counter to the global warming thesis. As I understand it, the global warming hypothesis generally posits that the earth is getting dangerously warm, that the increase in earth's temperatures is caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, and that man's industrial activities are the primary source of this detrimental increase in CO2 load and in earthly temperature.

Mr Anderson's argument includes recent data points inconsistent with the higher C02/higher temp hypothesis, the fact that most of the 'evidence' provided by scientists who favor global warming is sourced from computer models of CO2/temperature interaction (not experiments where causality can be more decisively verified), and the inherent inaccuracy of weather forecasting.

In one of the early missives on this blog, we suggested that considerable data were inconsistent with the global warming hypothesis. From a scientific standpoint, until such inconsistencies can be resolved, then the global warming hypothesis can not be considered valid--at least among those who prefer to think critically.

Particularly interesting were the responses to Mr Anderson's piece, of which there were many. Of those who disagreed with the position in the article, there was little, if any, evidence offered to strengthen the validity of the global warming case. Instead, themes included:

"the experts have spoken--there is no debate"
"I observe out-of-the-ordinary snow melt/hot weather in my locale, so global warming must be true"
"you must have a political agenda by taking this position"
among others...

None of these strengthen the scientific case for global warming. And, as with any endeavor grounded in the scientific method, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution--those seeking to advance their hypothesis.