Well, but most of us would pretty much believe in that. There are probably more things that were faked and we don't even know.
In the media that provide us with information about experiments and results I bet that a lot of them were faked. To really be sure that something is true we'd have to perform experiments by ourselves but since it's usually impossible we have to trust other people - rely on books, tv, the internet that often lie to us or twist facts they don't understand. Also, in science usually things aren't as easy the more you get into them.
With this specific report someone was lucky enough to hack and retrieve it.
In the media that provide us with information about experiments and results I bet that a lot of them were faked. To really be sure that something is true we'd have to perform experiments by ourselves but since it's usually impossible we have to trust other people - rely on books, tv, the internet that often lie to us or twist facts they don't understand. Also, in science usually things aren't as easy the more you get into them.
With this specific report someone was lucky enough to hack and retrieve it.
But I see what you're saying. Rukas' point is that we take most scientific fact as is even though we haven't seen it with our own eyes or done the research ourselves so he says that's "blind faith" which it is because we're believing what we are told. But I think you can't make the comparison between believing in something like the IPCC report and believing that God exists. The comparison just fails.