Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change(deathandtaxesmag.com)
deathandtaxesmag.com
Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/223471/physicist-offers-10000-for-anyone-to-scientifically-disprove-climate-change/
105 comments
OK, challenge accepted. :-) I am submitting this: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Please provide the comments why the evidence failed to prove the point.
Please provide the comments why the evidence failed to prove the point.
Correlation != Causation.* Maybe climate patterns are on a 650,001 year cycle?
* I make no claims as to my stance on the issue. I am simply playing devil's advocate.
* I make no claims as to my stance on the issue. I am simply playing devil's advocate.
Ah well, I guess you can play it that way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHXTa-946Bw
Still, it was worth of potential $10000. :-)
Anyway, I actually had a larger point. If the person giving the challenge is serious about this, they may easily prove it by giving back more helpful/reasonable comments.
Still, it was worth of potential $10000. :-)
Anyway, I actually had a larger point. If the person giving the challenge is serious about this, they may easily prove it by giving back more helpful/reasonable comments.
I had a similar thought. But I take the point more seriously.
To be clear, given the current data it's very likely that the climate is warming.
But there are no empirical data that show we can do anything about it.
A better contest in response to this post would be awarding $10,000 for proof that any plan (cap-and-trade bill X, global carbon tax of Y%) would be a net benefit over a given period of time (50 years, a century?).
This contest wouldn't prove anything either, but it does demonstrate something more profound about the limits of empirical decision making.
To be clear, given the current data it's very likely that the climate is warming.
But there are no empirical data that show we can do anything about it.
A better contest in response to this post would be awarding $10,000 for proof that any plan (cap-and-trade bill X, global carbon tax of Y%) would be a net benefit over a given period of time (50 years, a century?).
This contest wouldn't prove anything either, but it does demonstrate something more profound about the limits of empirical decision making.
Exactly. This is pointless.
except its a good "publicity" strategy in right direction but agreed the method is little more than a moot point.
I don't get why people make a distinction between man-made climate change, and "natural" climate change, when both have equally terrible results. Even if the earth is "natually" warming, it's still going to cause issues. Why not work to stop it?
Imagine you are someone who believes that we don't understand the climate well enough to determine if releasing ridiculous amounts of CO2 has any effect whatsoever. If you believed that, you probably wouldn't think that we understood the climate well enough to alter it.
My issue is that I've heard many pro global warming scientists on public radio say that even if man-made global warming doesn't exit, we should have all of these regulations and tax increases because it's good for the environment.
So what exactly do you have to lose if you leave the oil/coal in the ground? It will still be there for your descendants.
Especially, if you accept that global warming exists but is not man-made, it may be useful to keep backup of energy to be able to deal with it in the future, wouldn't it?
Especially, if you accept that global warming exists but is not man-made, it may be useful to keep backup of energy to be able to deal with it in the future, wouldn't it?
Our descendants will be vastly richer and smarter and better informed than we are, so you're saying we should tax the poor to help the rich.
Making energy more expensive now reduces economic progress, which is exactly the thing we need to outgrow this and all other future potential threats.
Making energy more expensive now reduces economic progress, which is exactly the thing we need to outgrow this and all other future potential threats.
Yeah. Or our descendants will be doomed. We have no idea.
This could be a good argument if the actual profits from coal and oil were really going to development of sustainable technologies (or poor people, in case of argument from streptomycin). In fact, that's precisely what the carbon tax proposals try to induce.
But I am not convinced; oil and coal companies fight this tooth and nail.
This could be a good argument if the actual profits from coal and oil were really going to development of sustainable technologies (or poor people, in case of argument from streptomycin). In fact, that's precisely what the carbon tax proposals try to induce.
But I am not convinced; oil and coal companies fight this tooth and nail.
Profits are irrelevant. What matters are the benefits, which include the consumer surplus as well as the producer surplus. So long as coal and oil are the cheapest most reliable source of energy, using them makes the economy more efficient than not using them and an efficient, functioning economy buys us more safety margin for just about any conceivable future threats, not just climate-related ones. Whereas a crippled economy where we use less energy automatically makes us more vulnerable to many other conceivable future threats, even ones we didn't explicitly prepare for. (Getting hit by an asteroid, disease epidemics, global cooling...)
Switching to less CO2-intensive technologies will happen anyway regardless but if you want to push it along, how about removing some of the roadblocks to nuclear power? (Including recycling/reprocessing waste into more fuel, which has been illegal in the US since the 1970s)
Switching to less CO2-intensive technologies will happen anyway regardless but if you want to push it along, how about removing some of the roadblocks to nuclear power? (Including recycling/reprocessing waste into more fuel, which has been illegal in the US since the 1970s)
Easy for rich Westerners to say. We're not the ones who will have to go back to subsistence farming.
The issue has always been increased state control.
Well, IIRC, the issue is that with science, nothing can be definitely be "proven." What makes it something in the scientific realm is that it is potentially disprovable. No?
So while we can show correlation and come up with hypotheses and theories etc ad nauseum, as I understand it, you can't "prove" anything. Supposedly. You can just show that your current theory is better than what we had before, basically.
So the "$10k to disprove" works scientifically. The "$10k to prove" should not.
Or so I understand it.
So while we can show correlation and come up with hypotheses and theories etc ad nauseum, as I understand it, you can't "prove" anything. Supposedly. You can just show that your current theory is better than what we had before, basically.
So the "$10k to disprove" works scientifically. The "$10k to prove" should not.
Or so I understand it.
This is why I'm a skeptic, change my mind:
Let's say we have 150 years of accurate temperature data, and it shows an increase of a few degrees. What is the standard deviation in global temperature for 150 year periods for the last 100K or 1M years? How do we know what is significant change?
Any data gathered from models (ice core, tree rings, ...) just doesn't have the resolution to answer these questions.
Let's say we have 150 years of accurate temperature data, and it shows an increase of a few degrees. What is the standard deviation in global temperature for 150 year periods for the last 100K or 1M years? How do we know what is significant change?
Any data gathered from models (ice core, tree rings, ...) just doesn't have the resolution to answer these questions.
You appear to be saying that you think this could be explained by some natural variation. That seems plausible, but is not supported by scientific evidence.
The term "man-made climate change" is a term for the truth of these three claims:
1. Human activity has increased the concentration of CO2 (and other green-house gases) in the atmosphere.
2. The global temperature has risen over the last 150 years.
3. An increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the rise in global temperature over the last 150 years.
Point 2 is simple scientific fact by now. Measurements show that this is the case, despite being critically revised and corrected for sampling biases over the years. Point 3 is also scientific fact; the theoretical effect has been shown to be true in simple laboratory expirements (it has been known for over 100 years) and the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature over the last 150 years overwhelmingly implies that this laboratory effect applies for the atmosphere as well.
That could still mean that the source of all of this greenhouse gas is natural. Still seems plausible, but again scientific evidence shows that the large majority of this "new CO2" is sourced by human activity [1]. Various sources of evidence exist; the isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere is atypical for natural sources, the concentration of CO2 in the oceans is rising fastest near the surface, and there are many more pieces of evidence.
It is true that there is still a large degree of ignorance on how global temperature varies "naturally" over long periods of time. However, we can show that this specific warming we're observing today is not just a natural variation. It is caused by humans.
[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-...
The term "man-made climate change" is a term for the truth of these three claims:
1. Human activity has increased the concentration of CO2 (and other green-house gases) in the atmosphere.
2. The global temperature has risen over the last 150 years.
3. An increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the rise in global temperature over the last 150 years.
Point 2 is simple scientific fact by now. Measurements show that this is the case, despite being critically revised and corrected for sampling biases over the years. Point 3 is also scientific fact; the theoretical effect has been shown to be true in simple laboratory expirements (it has been known for over 100 years) and the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature over the last 150 years overwhelmingly implies that this laboratory effect applies for the atmosphere as well.
That could still mean that the source of all of this greenhouse gas is natural. Still seems plausible, but again scientific evidence shows that the large majority of this "new CO2" is sourced by human activity [1]. Various sources of evidence exist; the isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere is atypical for natural sources, the concentration of CO2 in the oceans is rising fastest near the surface, and there are many more pieces of evidence.
It is true that there is still a large degree of ignorance on how global temperature varies "naturally" over long periods of time. However, we can show that this specific warming we're observing today is not just a natural variation. It is caused by humans.
[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-...
This is a fair perspective. I propose that the scientific community's collective stance is not that this is a wild deviation from typical variations, but that a significant change will result in unfavorable consequences for humanity as a species. Such change is occurring based on the data we have available to us. If we can mitigate or delay such change, we will be better off for it. This leads to emission controls, etc.
I believe the cause for concern among the proponents of awareness and regulation is that a notable change is happening, and we desperately want the status quo. Whether or not this change falls within normal variations is irrelevant to this argument.
I believe the cause for concern among the proponents of awareness and regulation is that a notable change is happening, and we desperately want the status quo. Whether or not this change falls within normal variations is irrelevant to this argument.
This is a refreshingly honest analysis. Personally I'm not convinced by the need to maintain the status quo, however. We can read all about 'X species going extinct in Y years', 'Average temperatures will go up by .X degrees in Y years', and 'X miles of coastline will be destroyed in Y years', and yet none of this explains /why/ these are undesirable outcomes. The unstated premise is that "change is bad", which is a strange position to take, to say the least.
Living in a country where a large part is located below sea level, I can assure you that a rising water level concerns me. But you're right, in the grander scheme of things global warming isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, it just is.
I don't understand why that line of thought makes you a skeptic. Apparently you found something the current data can not answer. But why do you think your question is even relevant - more important than, say, average temperature? Just because there are questions a model can't answer, the model isn't proven wrong. It just shows that there are things we don't know yet, not that everything we know is wrong.
(I am not a climate scientist so I don't know what the main data points are that are employed in the arguments. I also don't know if your claim that your question can not be answered is correct or not)
(I am not a climate scientist so I don't know what the main data points are that are employed in the arguments. I also don't know if your claim that your question can not be answered is correct or not)
My point is that you cannot even begin to ask what humans are doing to the global temperature if you do not even have an idea what it would look like without humans.
But why do you say "we have no idea"? Lots of things are known, like temperature averages and trends.
As I said, I am not a climatologist myself. I am a bit surprised that tree rings are supposedly not accurate enough to say things about a 150 year interval. I was under the impression tree rings develop on a yearly basis? I suppose there are other factors besides temperature that affect their growth. Then again, for standard derivation as you desire, those factors might be easy to cancel out?
As I said, I am not a climatologist myself. I am a bit surprised that tree rings are supposedly not accurate enough to say things about a 150 year interval. I was under the impression tree rings develop on a yearly basis? I suppose there are other factors besides temperature that affect their growth. Then again, for standard derivation as you desire, those factors might be easy to cancel out?
For tree rings to tell you what you want, trees would need to have a linear growth-response pattern with respect to temperature, and they don't. It's more of an inverse U-shaped pattern. Trees in temperature-limited areas do tend to grow better if it gets a little warmer, but if it gets a LOT warmer they'd grow worse again. The rings get smaller if it gets too cold, but they also get smaller if it gets too warm.
For this reason, it's essentially impossible to tell based on tree rings if it was warmer than today in times past.
Another thing to keep in mind is "the divergence problem" - several tree ring series right now suggest it's been getting "colder" for the last 50 years. This might be due to that U-shaped response kicking in, or it might be for various other reasons - some hypothesize it's due to changes in air pollution. It's a known issue, but not a solved issue.
Here's a good paper on the subject:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Loehle_Divergence_CC.pdf
For this reason, it's essentially impossible to tell based on tree rings if it was warmer than today in times past.
Another thing to keep in mind is "the divergence problem" - several tree ring series right now suggest it's been getting "colder" for the last 50 years. This might be due to that U-shaped response kicking in, or it might be for various other reasons - some hypothesize it's due to changes in air pollution. It's a known issue, but not a solved issue.
Here's a good paper on the subject:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Loehle_Divergence_CC.pdf
So would you say the claims are unfounded? I don't think it all hinges on tree rings, they are just one indicator of many.
I'm not sure which claims you mean.
The specific claim that it's significantly warmer now than it was about a thousand years ago during the MWP does mainly hinge on (a) tree rings, (b) ignoring the difference between high frequency and low-frequency information sources, (c) ignoring the error bars. We can't say with any certainty that current temperatures are "unprecedented" compared to the last big peak and it seems likely to me that they are not. (The MWP is making a comeback, scientifically speaking). A couple of relevant reconstructions are plotted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/
The specific claim that it's significantly warmer now than it was about a thousand years ago during the MWP does mainly hinge on (a) tree rings, (b) ignoring the difference between high frequency and low-frequency information sources, (c) ignoring the error bars. We can't say with any certainty that current temperatures are "unprecedented" compared to the last big peak and it seems likely to me that they are not. (The MWP is making a comeback, scientifically speaking). A couple of relevant reconstructions are plotted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/
I don't know if it is true that it all hinges on tree rings. So your claim is that everything global warming scientists have been saying is wrong because they ignored vital evidence?
I must admit to me it sounds a bit like the typical creationist argument: "but you can't explain how bone X came into existence". So never mind that evolution theory doesn't even claim to be able to provide a causal evolutionary path for every animal, and that it has been validated in countless examples (more than any other theory afaik), they find a single example that is not even relevant and use it as an excuse to dismiss the whole theory.
I don't call you a creationist, I just want to warn that you might be victim to the same kind of fallacy.
I must admit to me it sounds a bit like the typical creationist argument: "but you can't explain how bone X came into existence". So never mind that evolution theory doesn't even claim to be able to provide a causal evolutionary path for every animal, and that it has been validated in countless examples (more than any other theory afaik), they find a single example that is not even relevant and use it as an excuse to dismiss the whole theory.
I don't call you a creationist, I just want to warn that you might be victim to the same kind of fallacy.
> So your claim is that everything global warming scientists have been saying is wrong because they ignored vital evidence?
Nope, my claim was only that a few things that some global warming scientists have been saying is wrong because they ignored vital evidence or followed bad evidence. Other things that even those very people say are fine. But there's a lot of confirmation bias going on, and there's a fair bit of propaganda.
A big PART of the propaganda is to mischaracterize what skeptics are saying and why they are saying it. It is simply not true that people who doubt one element of the warmist litany doubt all elements of it. Hence the need for terms like "lukewarmer". The propaganda effort says that "denialists" are disagreeing with "97% of scientists", but in fact if you look at what questions were asked to get that "97% agreement" number you'll notice that essentially all the people accused of being "denialists" are IN the 97%. The stuff skeptics disagree with is mostly stuff that is still quite legitimately up for debate. For another example (besides the "unprecedented" thing), nobody knows what the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 (including all feedback effects operative at any given time) is; the IPCC can't give an exact number on that. They can give a range of guesses, but these are still guesses. Thinking they're guessing on the high side doesn't make one a creationist or even a 3-percent-er.
Does that make sense?
Nope, my claim was only that a few things that some global warming scientists have been saying is wrong because they ignored vital evidence or followed bad evidence. Other things that even those very people say are fine. But there's a lot of confirmation bias going on, and there's a fair bit of propaganda.
A big PART of the propaganda is to mischaracterize what skeptics are saying and why they are saying it. It is simply not true that people who doubt one element of the warmist litany doubt all elements of it. Hence the need for terms like "lukewarmer". The propaganda effort says that "denialists" are disagreeing with "97% of scientists", but in fact if you look at what questions were asked to get that "97% agreement" number you'll notice that essentially all the people accused of being "denialists" are IN the 97%. The stuff skeptics disagree with is mostly stuff that is still quite legitimately up for debate. For another example (besides the "unprecedented" thing), nobody knows what the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 (including all feedback effects operative at any given time) is; the IPCC can't give an exact number on that. They can give a range of guesses, but these are still guesses. Thinking they're guessing on the high side doesn't make one a creationist or even a 3-percent-er.
Does that make sense?
It seems normal that there is debate about details of a theory. However, the relevant aspect seems to be is there significant global warming because of human influence and should action be taken against it.
I think people who deny one or both of those two points are usually called global warming deniers (or skeptics, which might give them too much credit). I don't think arguing about some detail of the theory is in the same camp.
I think people who deny one or both of those two points are usually called global warming deniers (or skeptics, which might give them too much credit). I don't think arguing about some detail of the theory is in the same camp.
But at the same time we can look at other planets with atmospheres w/ much higher compositions of green house gases and the environment is OBVIOUSLY unsuitable for life. So why do we think we are immune to this? We pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, at non natural rates, what do you expect to happen?
But then, these other planets don't have life to regulate/change/modify/absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere. Clearly they can be used as a normal negative control, but at the same time, the data we have from these planets is minimal to say the least.
The problem is you're focusing only on one part of the evidence. The other part is the law of conservation of energy, the fact from which follows (after some modeling) that atmosphere will heat up when you add greenhouse gases.
And, quite interestingly, these two independent lines of evidence, match. (There are several others.)
In other words, you doubt the relevance of historical data. But the evidence is not just historical, it's also based on our understanding of the underlying physical mechanism.
And, quite interestingly, these two independent lines of evidence, match. (There are several others.)
In other words, you doubt the relevance of historical data. But the evidence is not just historical, it's also based on our understanding of the underlying physical mechanism.
What difference does it make if the cause is entirely man made or not. Should we let 80% of worlds population who live on the coast just deal with rising sea levels, because it natural? Do you really need to know it's causing a rise in temperature to want less trucks and cars polluting the air in your city? Or does the fact that we will never have the historic data to know for sure if humans are causing global warming, make it okay to ignore the issue entirely, forever?
>What difference does it make if the cause is entirely man made or not.
If it's not entirely man made, it would mean that efforts to curtail emissions (and consequently economic output) would be pointless and unnecessary.
>Should we let 80% of worlds population who live on the coast just deal with rising sea levels, because it natural?
It's not like the sea will simply rise several meters overnight, if it does actually rise. And again, if it's natural, then wouldn't that mean that we must, in fact, "deal with it"?
>Do you really need to know it's causing a rise in temperature to want less trucks and cars polluting the air in your city?
The air pollution you are concerned about here is sulfur, particulates, and other things unrelated to the CO2 debated over by politicians currently.
>Or does the fact that we will never have the historic data to know for sure if humans are causing global warming, make it okay to ignore the issue entirely, forever?
It certainly moves one's focus of concern to more pressing environmental and social issues.
If it's not entirely man made, it would mean that efforts to curtail emissions (and consequently economic output) would be pointless and unnecessary.
>Should we let 80% of worlds population who live on the coast just deal with rising sea levels, because it natural?
It's not like the sea will simply rise several meters overnight, if it does actually rise. And again, if it's natural, then wouldn't that mean that we must, in fact, "deal with it"?
>Do you really need to know it's causing a rise in temperature to want less trucks and cars polluting the air in your city?
The air pollution you are concerned about here is sulfur, particulates, and other things unrelated to the CO2 debated over by politicians currently.
>Or does the fact that we will never have the historic data to know for sure if humans are causing global warming, make it okay to ignore the issue entirely, forever?
It certainly moves one's focus of concern to more pressing environmental and social issues.
I agree that I want humans to stop fucking up the earth and I want less pollution. But those feelings do not prove climate change exists. Science doesn't work this way.
Lets say we have my blood alcohol level measured in the last 5 mins. It's 0.2g/dL. Whats my blood alcohol level throughout my lifetime though - i reckon it goes up and down quite a bit? How do i know I'm drunk or that it was caused by this keg I just drank?
Any data gathered from physiological models I will just arbitrarily ignore... just because...[waves hands]
Any data gathered from physiological models I will just arbitrarily ignore... just because...[waves hands]
That's a terrible analogy. Blood alcohol level only rises upon consumption of alcohol. Temperature rises and falls due to tons of external (not fully understood) factors.
Not to mention BAC has a known baseline of 0. What is the known baseline for mean global surface temperature? Why is 1951-1980 a good choice for a base period?
well I was trying to be funny.. but blood alcohol does indeed have a physical model that relates consumption to levels in the blood.
And atmospheric temperature has a simple physical model that relates it to C02 levels. And I use the term "simple" deliberately because whilst the short term fluctuations of climate are indeed vey complex - on geological time we have always seen rising temperatures with rising CO2 and have a simple compelling atmospheric model to explain it.
Without arguing over the resolution of the historical scientific data or how fast global warming will happen - it seems inevitable that with the current CO2 levels it will happen.
And atmospheric temperature has a simple physical model that relates it to C02 levels. And I use the term "simple" deliberately because whilst the short term fluctuations of climate are indeed vey complex - on geological time we have always seen rising temperatures with rising CO2 and have a simple compelling atmospheric model to explain it.
Without arguing over the resolution of the historical scientific data or how fast global warming will happen - it seems inevitable that with the current CO2 levels it will happen.
If I put 20 mice in a container, together with a toy car, measure the temperature in the container for 2 months and write a report about my findings, would that count as scientific proof? Because by definition, scientific proof does not result in 'true' or 'false', right?
According to Socrates it's impossible to disprove anything. That's purely a philosophical theory, but in this case it applies pretty well. You can't prove manmade global warming is NOT occuring because, in theory, the global warming that we're seeing (note that the definition of 'global warming' isn't set in stone, too) could be caused by other factors.
So, proving something isn't possible is impossible, and to top that this person runs a blog on global warming skepticism. I have the feeling he/she could be somewhat biased...
Just to be clear: I'm not debating man-made global warming. It's just that these kind of challenges bug me.
Side note: what is 'scientifically proven' anyway? I wrote a thesis on propaganda, and discovered (among other things) that when you say something is 'scientifically proven' most people stop questioning your claim.
According to Socrates it's impossible to disprove anything. That's purely a philosophical theory, but in this case it applies pretty well. You can't prove manmade global warming is NOT occuring because, in theory, the global warming that we're seeing (note that the definition of 'global warming' isn't set in stone, too) could be caused by other factors.
So, proving something isn't possible is impossible, and to top that this person runs a blog on global warming skepticism. I have the feeling he/she could be somewhat biased...
Just to be clear: I'm not debating man-made global warming. It's just that these kind of challenges bug me.
Side note: what is 'scientifically proven' anyway? I wrote a thesis on propaganda, and discovered (among other things) that when you say something is 'scientifically proven' most people stop questioning your claim.
Considering that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is not falsifiable in the first place (a key tenet of the scientific method), this is a strange offer indeed.
There may be a purported "consensus" on climate change but that does not make it scientific: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes...
There may be a purported "consensus" on climate change but that does not make it scientific: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes...
I was just commenting to my girlfriend the other day after the John Oliver "Statistically Accurate Climate Science Debate" that I would love to see the US government spend $100mm or $1b or $10b (say over 5 years) on grants to try and disprove climate change.
Now obviously there might be some issues ensuring that you get researchers who want to make a real go of trying to disprove it rather than erect straw men and tear them down. But that's probably solvable.
Yes in many respects it would be a big waste of money, but after you poke a million little holes in climate change they will be fixed. And that will strengthen our understanding of the climate and in all likelihood substantially bolster the claim that climate change is real and man-made. And if it takes $100mm or $1b or even $10b worth of very public extra research to really convince people it would be worth it.
The US Global Change Research Program's budget is $2.6b annually so $20mm per year is a joke, $200mm a year is a bit substantial and $2b per year might actually be a reasonable amount.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/14/presidents-201...
Again I realize that for many people it would be a "waste" of money. But if it was publicized properly (and I do realize that's a big IF) it could go a long way towards garnering the public support necessary to do some economically difficult things. When politicians are happy to kick the can down the road every couple of years it's pretty tough for the public to understand why this is an issue that can't be kicked as well.
EDIT: I also realize it's stupid to waste taxpayer money, something I'm vhemently against. But while I'm dreaming here, let's suppose that the money is taken from the military budget for the duration of the grant period.
Now obviously there might be some issues ensuring that you get researchers who want to make a real go of trying to disprove it rather than erect straw men and tear them down. But that's probably solvable.
Yes in many respects it would be a big waste of money, but after you poke a million little holes in climate change they will be fixed. And that will strengthen our understanding of the climate and in all likelihood substantially bolster the claim that climate change is real and man-made. And if it takes $100mm or $1b or even $10b worth of very public extra research to really convince people it would be worth it.
The US Global Change Research Program's budget is $2.6b annually so $20mm per year is a joke, $200mm a year is a bit substantial and $2b per year might actually be a reasonable amount.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/14/presidents-201...
Again I realize that for many people it would be a "waste" of money. But if it was publicized properly (and I do realize that's a big IF) it could go a long way towards garnering the public support necessary to do some economically difficult things. When politicians are happy to kick the can down the road every couple of years it's pretty tough for the public to understand why this is an issue that can't be kicked as well.
EDIT: I also realize it's stupid to waste taxpayer money, something I'm vhemently against. But while I'm dreaming here, let's suppose that the money is taken from the military budget for the duration of the grant period.
In context, that John Oliver debate segment was dumb. They took a perfectly reasonable Gallop poll result - that 1 in 4 Americans think the threat of climate change has been exaggerated - and rhetorically pretended the claim being made was that climate change "isn't real" or "doesn't exist".
But establishing that a threat exists is quite a lot different from establishing whether it's being overestimated or underestimated in the media, so the whole segment was a non sequitur - it didn't respond in any way at all to the news article it was allegedly answering.
My guess is that they had Bill Nye, wanted to do this gag, couldn't come up with any valid reason to do it based on any actual news stories, then said "heck, let's do it anyway; maybe nobody will notice!"
(As a side note, if you look into how the claims of "97% agreement" were determined, you'll find that most "skeptics" would also be in the 97%. It's pure propaganda at this point to claim 97% support for some vague "the consensus" without actually specifying what exactly "the consensus" they agree to IS. The original value of "the consensus" seems to have been: (a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (b) it's gotten warmer recently, (c) human activity has had a significant warming effect, where both the nature of the "human activity" and the meaning of "significant" are usually left vague and unstated.
Oh, and to get a number as high as "97%" what gets measured is usually not the level of agreement among "scientists" but rather among a tiny subset, such as "those climate scientists who publish the most in the field".)
But establishing that a threat exists is quite a lot different from establishing whether it's being overestimated or underestimated in the media, so the whole segment was a non sequitur - it didn't respond in any way at all to the news article it was allegedly answering.
My guess is that they had Bill Nye, wanted to do this gag, couldn't come up with any valid reason to do it based on any actual news stories, then said "heck, let's do it anyway; maybe nobody will notice!"
(As a side note, if you look into how the claims of "97% agreement" were determined, you'll find that most "skeptics" would also be in the 97%. It's pure propaganda at this point to claim 97% support for some vague "the consensus" without actually specifying what exactly "the consensus" they agree to IS. The original value of "the consensus" seems to have been: (a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (b) it's gotten warmer recently, (c) human activity has had a significant warming effect, where both the nature of the "human activity" and the meaning of "significant" are usually left vague and unstated.
Oh, and to get a number as high as "97%" what gets measured is usually not the level of agreement among "scientists" but rather among a tiny subset, such as "those climate scientists who publish the most in the field".)
The article has a weird tone.
Why is he being so agressive against people who think the opposite of him? I mean if you are tolerant against people whose religion place the women in a submission role and restrain to nothing individual rights, you can be also tolerant to people who think the earth is not warming up.
Why is he being so agressive against people who think the opposite of him? I mean if you are tolerant against people whose religion place the women in a submission role and restrain to nothing individual rights, you can be also tolerant to people who think the earth is not warming up.
Well, it's more complicated than "thinking the opposite"; it's more along the lines of "thinking the opposite of what hurts the wallet".
Religion is a correct analogy. If in a certain culture, women are submitted, that doesn't hurt people outside it.
People globally feels - and is, actually - threatened by global warming, so it's understandable to have ahem heat directed to people with power and without sense of collaboration (and I'm using an euphemism here), which is the current requirement for working out the problem.
Religion is a correct analogy. If in a certain culture, women are submitted, that doesn't hurt people outside it.
People globally feels - and is, actually - threatened by global warming, so it's understandable to have ahem heat directed to people with power and without sense of collaboration (and I'm using an euphemism here), which is the current requirement for working out the problem.
I'll wager a guess that it's because the stakes of being wrong on climate change are pretty high.
Isn't the stakes of being wrong in the other direction (that global warming isn't happening) just as high?
Imagine if we spend billions/trillions of dollars trying to capture CO2, reduce oil consumption, etc. and it turns out CO2 wasn't the cause of global warming. That money could have done a lot of good if spent in other ways (i.e. lift millions of people out of poverty).
Imagine if we spend billions/trillions of dollars trying to capture CO2, reduce oil consumption, etc. and it turns out CO2 wasn't the cause of global warming. That money could have done a lot of good if spent in other ways (i.e. lift millions of people out of poverty).
So we end up spending billions/trillions of dollars reducing consumption of nonrenewable resources and developing cleaner technology. What a waste.
Because they don't just "think" the opposite of him; they claim that they have a scientific basis for their position. It's like the difference between hearing someone committed a crime, and watching them commit it (and testifying about it).
We certainly tolerate people who think unicorns fly out of pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, but we don't let them make decisions that will affect the health and well-being of a significant part of the planet's population.
We certainly tolerate people who think unicorns fly out of pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, but we don't let them make decisions that will affect the health and well-being of a significant part of the planet's population.
This is the very definition of dogmatism. You literally just claimed that thinking differently is okay, as long as it's not your sacred cow which is getting involved in the discussion.
Let me help you understand what this sounds like: "Because they don't just 'think' that evolution is real; they claim that the bible isn't the inspired Word of God!" That's absolutely no different than what you just wrote: science is your "inspired Word" about which no one can disagree, even if they're allowed to disagree about everything else.
Let me help you understand what this sounds like: "Because they don't just 'think' that evolution is real; they claim that the bible isn't the inspired Word of God!" That's absolutely no different than what you just wrote: science is your "inspired Word" about which no one can disagree, even if they're allowed to disagree about everything else.
"Being tolerant" of a person's views doesn't entail "being respectful of" them, nor does it imply one must simply abide their expression in silence.
Here's a counter-question: why is it that when people who have extraordinary or extraordinarily extreme opinions are questioned or challenged there seems to almost always be an attempt to deflect the discussion toward one revolving around respect and tolerance instead of the merits of the issue involved? (That's kind of a rhetorical question, really--my long and varied experience on topics of this sort has led me to one conclusion if nothing else, and that is this: people who hold such views and attempt such deflection aren't interested in honest dialog.)
Here's a counter-question: why is it that when people who have extraordinary or extraordinarily extreme opinions are questioned or challenged there seems to almost always be an attempt to deflect the discussion toward one revolving around respect and tolerance instead of the merits of the issue involved? (That's kind of a rhetorical question, really--my long and varied experience on topics of this sort has led me to one conclusion if nothing else, and that is this: people who hold such views and attempt such deflection aren't interested in honest dialog.)
I usually see the opposite, the people with extreme opinions are often told their intolerance doesn't have to be tolerated.
Often times this bothers me because the people who choose not to tolerate the intolerable are the ones who seem not interested in honest dialogue.
My reasoning is because most often they are the people who also get to label what is considered intolerance and extreme opinions. Then, the use of such labels is the reason to dismiss the opposing viewpoint without honest dialogue. If you take an objective viewpoint of common debates on the news and whatnot, you'll see it.
Often times this bothers me because the people who choose not to tolerate the intolerable are the ones who seem not interested in honest dialogue.
My reasoning is because most often they are the people who also get to label what is considered intolerance and extreme opinions. Then, the use of such labels is the reason to dismiss the opposing viewpoint without honest dialogue. If you take an objective viewpoint of common debates on the news and whatnot, you'll see it.
Nah; you're just repeating the same "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" idea I wrote about. It has nothing to do with objectivity--that's your own subjective opinion and projection.
I see your mistake, but I was not referring to the argument that you describe. Which I would agree is a rather silly argument to make.
I'm speaking of situations where the opposing viewpoint is labeled as intolerant before the label-er even knows what the opposing viewpoint is or is mistaken of what the opposing viewpoint is; usually from emotional reactions. In those instances it is rather easy to remain objective enough to see what's going on.
I would believe you provided an example of what I'm describing. You labeled me as a "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" person before you knew whether I believed that or not.
I'm speaking of situations where the opposing viewpoint is labeled as intolerant before the label-er even knows what the opposing viewpoint is or is mistaken of what the opposing viewpoint is; usually from emotional reactions. In those instances it is rather easy to remain objective enough to see what's going on.
I would believe you provided an example of what I'm describing. You labeled me as a "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" person before you knew whether I believed that or not.
Somehow that doesn't seem to be possible.
The entire question is a fraud of course : the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. While that does satisfy some standards used in science, no scientist in his right mind would refer to that as "proven", because it isn't.
So here's my version :
1) There is no argument from either maths, or even a simulation from first principles (NOT measured data and statistics and correlations) that shows a scenario like global warming.
2) principle of the excluded third ("tertium non datur") was an accepted standard in logic before Christ was born. It states that any statement that cannot be proven from first principles is disproved just by that fact (NOT wrong, but that wasn't asked)
Ergo, climate science disproved. Or at least, there is no known proof. There is loads and loads of statistical correlations indicating it exists, but there is no correct argument from first principles known, which is what I'd require to say "proof". It is overwhelmingly likely (well I haven't checked, but I believe them) that it exists, but not proven.
Now please keep in mind what I am and am not claiming here before you vilify me. I am claiming that climate science is very far from satisfying the standard used in exact sciences that is referred to when scientists use the word "proof".
Obviously I am not claiming that global warming will reverse or is just a mistake or whatever. The graph has been rising pretty constantly for 150 years or so, and yes, it absolutely does not look like it will reverse. This is however very far from having an explanation from first principles for climate change.
The entire question is a fraud of course : the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. While that does satisfy some standards used in science, no scientist in his right mind would refer to that as "proven", because it isn't.
So here's my version :
1) There is no argument from either maths, or even a simulation from first principles (NOT measured data and statistics and correlations) that shows a scenario like global warming.
2) principle of the excluded third ("tertium non datur") was an accepted standard in logic before Christ was born. It states that any statement that cannot be proven from first principles is disproved just by that fact (NOT wrong, but that wasn't asked)
Ergo, climate science disproved. Or at least, there is no known proof. There is loads and loads of statistical correlations indicating it exists, but there is no correct argument from first principles known, which is what I'd require to say "proof". It is overwhelmingly likely (well I haven't checked, but I believe them) that it exists, but not proven.
Now please keep in mind what I am and am not claiming here before you vilify me. I am claiming that climate science is very far from satisfying the standard used in exact sciences that is referred to when scientists use the word "proof".
Obviously I am not claiming that global warming will reverse or is just a mistake or whatever. The graph has been rising pretty constantly for 150 years or so, and yes, it absolutely does not look like it will reverse. This is however very far from having an explanation from first principles for climate change.
While the idea of "proof" here is just a distraction, we have vastly more than merely "statistical correlations". We know that we've significantly increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and we have a pretty good idea of what that does to a climate:
"Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect."
From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet
EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.
"Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect."
From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet
EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.
> the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. <
That can easily be generalized to any scientific construct, since all predictions and theories based on experiment implicitly contain the assumption of their continued validity. Consequently what you're doing is conflating an argument against the metaphysical underpinnings of science (amusingly, by arguing from the assumptions of rationalism which are themselves subject to at least as much skepticism and scrutiny) with an argument against the products of scientific discovery.
That can easily be generalized to any scientific construct, since all predictions and theories based on experiment implicitly contain the assumption of their continued validity. Consequently what you're doing is conflating an argument against the metaphysical underpinnings of science (amusingly, by arguing from the assumptions of rationalism which are themselves subject to at least as much skepticism and scrutiny) with an argument against the products of scientific discovery.
No it can't. You'll find exact sciences don't work like this.
First in maths you have models. Of course some models match reality and some don't, but proven "given" a model means a very specific thing and is extremely rigorous.
Second physics, at least particle physics, has a lot of models these days. The most famous "in use" one is the standard model. It is not based on measurement, but on the assumption that a specific geometric shape determines the laws of physics, along with a number of constants, none of which can be directly measured (and generally, you don't use the "real" ones for calculation because they're somewhat inconvenient). The conclusions of the standard model are valid given those assumptions, just like mathematical theories are. That has good sides and really bad ones. The good, everybody knows. The worst: according to the standard model, gravity shouldn't exist.
You'll find most rigorous theories of exact sciences work like that. We can give a very, very thorough argument why electrical current and magnetism work in perpendicular planes, give exact values for the magnitudes, and you will not find a single measured quantity anywhere in that argument with one exception : the one that determines the units used. But that is an arbitrary constant, different for the metric versus imperial system.
Now I'm not saying there aren't variations on what it means to be proven within these sciences, but you can reasonably say that given the peano axioms and the model used, these conclusions are proven.
No such claim can be made for climate science. The "laws" of climate science are not the result of first principles (because they don't match observed behavior of the atmosphere), but statistical best estimators of observed measurements. This is absolutely not the same standard as used in exact sciences.
First in maths you have models. Of course some models match reality and some don't, but proven "given" a model means a very specific thing and is extremely rigorous.
Second physics, at least particle physics, has a lot of models these days. The most famous "in use" one is the standard model. It is not based on measurement, but on the assumption that a specific geometric shape determines the laws of physics, along with a number of constants, none of which can be directly measured (and generally, you don't use the "real" ones for calculation because they're somewhat inconvenient). The conclusions of the standard model are valid given those assumptions, just like mathematical theories are. That has good sides and really bad ones. The good, everybody knows. The worst: according to the standard model, gravity shouldn't exist.
You'll find most rigorous theories of exact sciences work like that. We can give a very, very thorough argument why electrical current and magnetism work in perpendicular planes, give exact values for the magnitudes, and you will not find a single measured quantity anywhere in that argument with one exception : the one that determines the units used. But that is an arbitrary constant, different for the metric versus imperial system.
Now I'm not saying there aren't variations on what it means to be proven within these sciences, but you can reasonably say that given the peano axioms and the model used, these conclusions are proven.
No such claim can be made for climate science. The "laws" of climate science are not the result of first principles (because they don't match observed behavior of the atmosphere), but statistical best estimators of observed measurements. This is absolutely not the same standard as used in exact sciences.
> The "laws" of climate science are not the result of first principles (because they don't match observed behavior of the atmosphere), but statistical best estimators of observed measurements. <
I didn't read the comment I replied to this way; my mistake. By the way, I understand how exact sciences work (I chose astrophysics and relativity for my specializations in physics), but thanks for the exposition.
I didn't read the comment I replied to this way; my mistake. By the way, I understand how exact sciences work (I chose astrophysics and relativity for my specializations in physics), but thanks for the exposition.
I thought one of (not the only) the main aspects of the scientific method was that it could only be used to disprove a theory, but never to prove it 100% correct. For example, you cannot ever prove that Big Foot is a hoax, but you can disprove it by finding him. Or, the theory of gravity can never be proven, only disproven if an experiment showed it to be false. Isn't that all this scientist is asking for?
Consider relativity.
There were some interesting observations that didn't seem to make sense (the speed of light is constant, regardless of the motion of the observer). Then someone figured out how to modify Newton's equations for motion to make this possible. Then someone else took this seriously, and gave a comprehensive explanation of the implications. Then someone built the GPS system, which would not work if the clocks it uses didn't account for the time dilation that relativity predicts.
Or, consider quantum mechanics.
This follows much the same pattern. Someone made interesting observations about how light behaves (and other things). Someone worked out some math that would explain how it works. Someone else used that math to build useful things like computers (semiconductors work like they do because of QM).
You can be nitpicky and say that those theories aren't "proven", and that Newtonian mechanics is "wrong". Or you can say, they are all obviously true enough to be useful. Just because Newtonian mechanics is "disproven" for the inside of computer chips or for the precise motions of GPS satellites, does not stop it from being correct and useful for everyday life or even for serious engineering.
There were some interesting observations that didn't seem to make sense (the speed of light is constant, regardless of the motion of the observer). Then someone figured out how to modify Newton's equations for motion to make this possible. Then someone else took this seriously, and gave a comprehensive explanation of the implications. Then someone built the GPS system, which would not work if the clocks it uses didn't account for the time dilation that relativity predicts.
Or, consider quantum mechanics.
This follows much the same pattern. Someone made interesting observations about how light behaves (and other things). Someone worked out some math that would explain how it works. Someone else used that math to build useful things like computers (semiconductors work like they do because of QM).
You can be nitpicky and say that those theories aren't "proven", and that Newtonian mechanics is "wrong". Or you can say, they are all obviously true enough to be useful. Just because Newtonian mechanics is "disproven" for the inside of computer chips or for the precise motions of GPS satellites, does not stop it from being correct and useful for everyday life or even for serious engineering.
I'm not arguing that scientific theories aren't useful, just that the point of science is to continue to search for ways to disprove things, not to ever prove something. Considering the infinite amount of knowledge about our universe that has yet to be discovered or understood, the only way to go about making sense of it all is to start by disproving things one at a time. There is always a deeper level of understanding and knowledge that could potentially make something previously thought to be true untrue.
Considering the billions of dollars both sides of this debate have on the line, spending a few thousand to incentivize individuals to disprove this theory would be quite rational in my mind. Whether Global Warming can be disproven or not is a completely different question.
Considering the billions of dollars both sides of this debate have on the line, spending a few thousand to incentivize individuals to disprove this theory would be quite rational in my mind. Whether Global Warming can be disproven or not is a completely different question.
the point of science is to continue to search for ways to disprove things, not to ever prove something
No, the point is to learn things. Any time something is shown to be less likely (disproven) other things must therefore be that same amount more likely. The goal is to concentrate that likeliness in as small an area as possible.
Simply disproving things doesn't help with this. Disproving things that we thought were true helps with this (a star viewed thru a telescope has a disc because of diffraction, not because of similar triangles; the earth really does move). Finding the limits of what we know helps with this (Newtonian mechanics works, but not for extremely small or fast things).
Given infinite possibilities, just disproving some at random won't help. You need to find which possibilities you can learn the most by testing.
There is always a deeper level of understanding and knowledge that could potentially make something previously thought to be true untrue.
This is not a useful way of looking at things. It's better to say, for anything that's true, there are limits within which it is true. Newtonian mechanics is not untrue, it's just not all-encompassing.
Consider all those infinite possibilities as a multi-dimensional space. A particular theory is a region (or set of regions) in that space that are true, and that aren't true. Any one experiment can test one point and see if it matches what the theory says. If you have a cluster of points that are all true or all false, you don't gain anything by testing more points in that same area. You gain by testing points near where the theory says the edge of a region should be. If the edges are all where they should be, you've proved the theory as true (or rather, true enough). If not, it's either wrong or more limited that you thought (it's less true than you thought).
No, the point is to learn things. Any time something is shown to be less likely (disproven) other things must therefore be that same amount more likely. The goal is to concentrate that likeliness in as small an area as possible.
Simply disproving things doesn't help with this. Disproving things that we thought were true helps with this (a star viewed thru a telescope has a disc because of diffraction, not because of similar triangles; the earth really does move). Finding the limits of what we know helps with this (Newtonian mechanics works, but not for extremely small or fast things).
Given infinite possibilities, just disproving some at random won't help. You need to find which possibilities you can learn the most by testing.
There is always a deeper level of understanding and knowledge that could potentially make something previously thought to be true untrue.
This is not a useful way of looking at things. It's better to say, for anything that's true, there are limits within which it is true. Newtonian mechanics is not untrue, it's just not all-encompassing.
Consider all those infinite possibilities as a multi-dimensional space. A particular theory is a region (or set of regions) in that space that are true, and that aren't true. Any one experiment can test one point and see if it matches what the theory says. If you have a cluster of points that are all true or all false, you don't gain anything by testing more points in that same area. You gain by testing points near where the theory says the edge of a region should be. If the edges are all where they should be, you've proved the theory as true (or rather, true enough). If not, it's either wrong or more limited that you thought (it's less true than you thought).
If you're talking about whether theories match the real world, then you're correct. It can never be conclusively verified due to the problem of measurement.
However, given a theory, you can prove whether or not something is correct in the model described by the theory. So while it can never be conclusively proven whether, say, the standard model matches the real world perfectly, you can most definitely prove that electrons behave in a specific way in a world that behaves like the standard model says it should.
That leaves open the question whether the real world matches the standard model or not, and while very compelling measurements and experiments can be produced, we don't really know. Well, we do know, actually. There's no gravity in the standard model, so it most definitely does not describe our world, which is why the whole string theory research is happening.
But climate science does not have that. It does not have tiny theories with constants that try to find the smallest possible unit and how it behaves. Climate science laws talk about volumes of air, say cubes of 10km on a side, and statistically it will behave like X. But nobody really knows why we got X, except that it "tends" to predict measurements fairly accurately. Why ? We have some idea, like "co2 keeps sunlight from reflecting out", but we don't know why the observed concentrations in the athmosphere don't match what you see in a gas experiment (basically in experiments greenhouse effects stop at ~250-280ppm depending on concentrations of other gases, doesn't happen in the athmosphere obviously). But climate science doesn't even try to explain this, or reduce it to first principles, they just try to model whatever they see.
However, given a theory, you can prove whether or not something is correct in the model described by the theory. So while it can never be conclusively proven whether, say, the standard model matches the real world perfectly, you can most definitely prove that electrons behave in a specific way in a world that behaves like the standard model says it should.
That leaves open the question whether the real world matches the standard model or not, and while very compelling measurements and experiments can be produced, we don't really know. Well, we do know, actually. There's no gravity in the standard model, so it most definitely does not describe our world, which is why the whole string theory research is happening.
But climate science does not have that. It does not have tiny theories with constants that try to find the smallest possible unit and how it behaves. Climate science laws talk about volumes of air, say cubes of 10km on a side, and statistically it will behave like X. But nobody really knows why we got X, except that it "tends" to predict measurements fairly accurately. Why ? We have some idea, like "co2 keeps sunlight from reflecting out", but we don't know why the observed concentrations in the athmosphere don't match what you see in a gas experiment (basically in experiments greenhouse effects stop at ~250-280ppm depending on concentrations of other gases, doesn't happen in the athmosphere obviously). But climate science doesn't even try to explain this, or reduce it to first principles, they just try to model whatever they see.
[deleted]
Who ever agreed to be tolerant of fascist religions?
Or tolerant of a society that uses women to sell cars, films, magazines. Objectifies them to the point where they are mere symbols of sexual desire.
Or we could tolerate a society where your private correspondences will be read where your home will be invaded and your every move monitored.
Or a society which takes your wealth and funds a bloated military industrial complex, banking system, or anyone else with a large enough lobby group.
But it's the internet, spouting assertions from positions of ignorance is common place.
Or we could tolerate a society where your private correspondences will be read where your home will be invaded and your every move monitored.
Or a society which takes your wealth and funds a bloated military industrial complex, banking system, or anyone else with a large enough lobby group.
But it's the internet, spouting assertions from positions of ignorance is common place.
Let's just take this a piece at a time.
I know nothing about this guy except what I've read in this one post, but I feel that the author is being intellectually dishonest and with his "prize" and, instead, is attempting to argue his point via propaganda.
...there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing and exacerbating climate change...
...the only reason so many scientists agree on climate change being a thing is because all the ones who disagree are being “censored” or something...
...These people often believe that there is actual scientific evidence disproving climate change. There, of course, is not.
I know nothing about this guy except what I've read in this one post, but I feel that the author is being intellectually dishonest and with his "prize" and, instead, is attempting to argue his point via propaganda.
Disproving climate change is virtually impossible. Every scientist agree that climate changes, it has done so in the past, will do in the future and is doing it in the present.
That is not an interesting question.
The interesting questions are:
- Is climate changing in a different way (faster, for example) than it has done in the past?
- Do humans have anything to do with it? Is it caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2?
- Will this change be negative?
- If the change is negative (be it man-made or not), can we stop it?
- If we can stop this climate change, how much will it cost? Will this money better spent stopping climate or is a better strategy to adapt to this change?
- Do we understand climate physics well enough to create models that can predict the climate of the future?
This last question is important, because if we can not produce a model that can predict the future well enough, all the other questions are irrelevant. And it seems that predictions of the models and reality are showing quite significant discrepancies: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-...
So it's not black or white, yes or no, good or bad. As usually it is in science. Name-calling, appealing to consensus, arguments of authority… those are never the result of science at work.
That is not an interesting question.
The interesting questions are:
- Is climate changing in a different way (faster, for example) than it has done in the past?
- Do humans have anything to do with it? Is it caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2?
- Will this change be negative?
- If the change is negative (be it man-made or not), can we stop it?
- If we can stop this climate change, how much will it cost? Will this money better spent stopping climate or is a better strategy to adapt to this change?
- Do we understand climate physics well enough to create models that can predict the climate of the future?
This last question is important, because if we can not produce a model that can predict the future well enough, all the other questions are irrelevant. And it seems that predictions of the models and reality are showing quite significant discrepancies: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-...
So it's not black or white, yes or no, good or bad. As usually it is in science. Name-calling, appealing to consensus, arguments of authority… those are never the result of science at work.
It seems longbets.org would be a more appropriate arena. "The average temperature of the earth will (not) rise by more than X degrees in the next twenty years."
That would be an excellent bet for the person betting that the temperature will increase. However, it doesn't prove that human actions are causing it. I think most deniers do believe that the climate is changing - even that the temps are going up. The problem is that causation is hard to measure. I'm not a scientist, but I think theories explain causes, and you can't directly measure a theory, only the observations that support it.
So, maybe a bet that includes more measurements (green house gas emissions, etc.) would be needed to prove man-made global warming. The outcome of the total of those bets would either support or not support the theory. But that might be a lot of bets and a mixed result could complicate things.
So, maybe a bet that includes more measurements (green house gas emissions, etc.) would be needed to prove man-made global warming. The outcome of the total of those bets would either support or not support the theory. But that might be a lot of bets and a mixed result could complicate things.
Not really, because you'd have to agree on how to measure average temperature of the earth.
Well, let's just rough out the experiment, shall we?
First, we need to establish that human activity can change the climate. For the sake of argument, let's try rainfall in the Sonora Desert. What we could do is to burrow an underground canal from the Gulf of California into Laguna Salada, and from there to the Salton Sink. This would establish shallow, inland, saltwater seas upwind of the desert, in a very sunny area, as a source of atmospheric humidity. Evaporation would be further encouraged with sea salt manufacturing beds and Salicornia bigelovii plantations.
(It would also displace thousands of people whose homes would now be underwater, but let's handwave that aside for now.)
We then erect solar-powered ionization towers downwind of the new seas, to stimulate cloud formation via charged particles of dust. Those clouds will tend to blow east over the desert and rain out. To extend the rainfall further east, we simply plant dry-tolerant plants--such as sorghum, lucern, and field pea--in the newly wet areas, to recycle moisture back into the air via transpiration.
Results of the experiment will compare weather patterns in Yuma and Mexicali before and after the megaproject.
And then, after spending (optimistically) $20 billion on the subterranean saltwater tunnels, and $100 million on the cloud seeders, we can collect our $10000. Yay!
In comparison to what it would cost to test experimentally a hypothesis that states the entirety of global human economic activity is influencing weather patterns, you will have to spend an amount capable of simulating a portion of the global human economy towards a directed experimental purpose. $10000 isn't even a round-off error.
You would be better off buying up unproductive arid land and leasing it to cattle ranchers as semi-arid grazing land afterward.
First, we need to establish that human activity can change the climate. For the sake of argument, let's try rainfall in the Sonora Desert. What we could do is to burrow an underground canal from the Gulf of California into Laguna Salada, and from there to the Salton Sink. This would establish shallow, inland, saltwater seas upwind of the desert, in a very sunny area, as a source of atmospheric humidity. Evaporation would be further encouraged with sea salt manufacturing beds and Salicornia bigelovii plantations.
(It would also displace thousands of people whose homes would now be underwater, but let's handwave that aside for now.)
We then erect solar-powered ionization towers downwind of the new seas, to stimulate cloud formation via charged particles of dust. Those clouds will tend to blow east over the desert and rain out. To extend the rainfall further east, we simply plant dry-tolerant plants--such as sorghum, lucern, and field pea--in the newly wet areas, to recycle moisture back into the air via transpiration.
Results of the experiment will compare weather patterns in Yuma and Mexicali before and after the megaproject.
And then, after spending (optimistically) $20 billion on the subterranean saltwater tunnels, and $100 million on the cloud seeders, we can collect our $10000. Yay!
In comparison to what it would cost to test experimentally a hypothesis that states the entirety of global human economic activity is influencing weather patterns, you will have to spend an amount capable of simulating a portion of the global human economy towards a directed experimental purpose. $10000 isn't even a round-off error.
You would be better off buying up unproductive arid land and leasing it to cattle ranchers as semi-arid grazing land afterward.
A lot of crackpots think that they already have. To make this a good-faith offer, it might be good to google all of the major theories from the denialist side and explain in black-and-white terms why they would or would not qualify for the prize. Otherwise, it's just asking somebody to volunteer to be your punching bag for free.
Another stunning HN thread where a subset of posters have decided they know more about climate change than people dedicating their lives to the study of climate change.
Since so many of you are wagering or believing let me just toss out what I believe.
I believe that credible and respected climate change scientists have forgotten more than you could ever know about the subject.
Climate Change deniers are a joke and a menace and are tied neck and neck with creationists for the moron awards.
Since so many of you are wagering or believing let me just toss out what I believe.
I believe that credible and respected climate change scientists have forgotten more than you could ever know about the subject.
Climate Change deniers are a joke and a menace and are tied neck and neck with creationists for the moron awards.
So because I'm not an expert, I should have no opinion on the subject? Experts make mistakes all the time. They are just people, after all.
I look at the tech world (which I know very well) and "experts" are wrong all the time. I can't imagine it being much different in other fields.
I see people here on HN making comments about the economy. Should all of these opinions be ignored because they aren't experts?
Look at the guy that discovered bacteria: The experts of his time shunned him and he died in an insane asylum.
Scientists pretty much lose their career overnight if they have any study or research on non man-made climate change.
How can we really have an honest debate when this kind of behavior is going on?
I look at the tech world (which I know very well) and "experts" are wrong all the time. I can't imagine it being much different in other fields.
I see people here on HN making comments about the economy. Should all of these opinions be ignored because they aren't experts?
Look at the guy that discovered bacteria: The experts of his time shunned him and he died in an insane asylum.
Scientists pretty much lose their career overnight if they have any study or research on non man-made climate change.
How can we really have an honest debate when this kind of behavior is going on?
People are paid money to sow uncertainty about climate science. These tactics are the same ones used by tobacco companies. The tactics are the same and many of the scientists are the same.
That's not an honest debate.
The reason people don't engage with you has nothing to do with whether you're an expert or not. It's because people who deny climate change often grab a snippet of science, out of context, and that's been given a spin by deniers. Then, rather than learning why that bit is flawed or what the context is they'll just throw it into a discussion and demand that it is explained. And then they'll grab another bit. And another bit. Eventually it's easier to regard this as trolling (which it is - concern trolling) and treat appropriately (by stopping feeding the trolls).
That's not an honest debate.
The reason people don't engage with you has nothing to do with whether you're an expert or not. It's because people who deny climate change often grab a snippet of science, out of context, and that's been given a spin by deniers. Then, rather than learning why that bit is flawed or what the context is they'll just throw it into a discussion and demand that it is explained. And then they'll grab another bit. And another bit. Eventually it's easier to regard this as trolling (which it is - concern trolling) and treat appropriately (by stopping feeding the trolls).
[deleted]
Can you really prove something by the scientific method? Maybe it would be better to say "show a likelihood of at least x%"?
Yes. You can prove that water boils when you add enough heat. You are making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
No, incorrect. In science nothing is ever REALLY proven.
But there are standards by which scientists agree that a certain amount of evidence will be accepted as "proof". At least for a while. Where everyone understand that it could always be overturned by some evidence to the contrary.
In particle physics it takes five sigma to make a claim. In other fields, often less. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/the-particle-proof-1150/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
For example everyone knew that water boiled once it got hot enough. Then someone invented a pressure vessel and wasn't able to boil water over a fire because as the pressure rose, so did the boiling point. And thus a thing that everyone knew was true for thousands of years wasn't quite anymore.
But there are standards by which scientists agree that a certain amount of evidence will be accepted as "proof". At least for a while. Where everyone understand that it could always be overturned by some evidence to the contrary.
In particle physics it takes five sigma to make a claim. In other fields, often less. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/the-particle-proof-1150/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
For example everyone knew that water boiled once it got hot enough. Then someone invented a pressure vessel and wasn't able to boil water over a fire because as the pressure rose, so did the boiling point. And thus a thing that everyone knew was true for thousands of years wasn't quite anymore.
If you do it scientifically, meaning by experimentation, you've really only shown that in all observed cases water boils when you add enough heat. It's an inductive process, which unlike deduction is never logically valid - excluding mathematical induction which is really more like deduction, since you can actually test all possible cases that way. It is a philosophical issue, but epistemology is the basis of the validity of science.
True. It's a kind of "intellectual" PR stunt. Hopefully, at least it will get rid of the cheap arguments on the opposite side.
And presumably ignore cheap tricks and fiddled data on the the other opposite side - a comment not improper given your dismissive tone.
my cheap argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif1NwcUgMU
It is well understood that the atmosphere is a highly chaotic system. Small changes can have dramatic impact. It is completely inconceivable that six billion humans have had no impact on weather and climate. Arguing about the exact consequences of that is a complete waste of time. Humans have the ability to influence the environment and we need to do that in an educated way. Fixating on climate science distracts from more tangible environmental issues that need to be addressed.
Considering my classmates the Koch brothers have given $10Ms to various organizations with the same goal, this is small potatoes.
does that mean that lack of scientific proof means it is real? is that what they are trying to get at?
97% consensus? Right away I'm calling bullshit. I think this only proves how immature the academic world tends to be and may point to a bigger problem.
There are plenty of areas to pick apart this article and motivations behind it. 97% consensus isn't one of them.
Denial, is old and dead amongst the well informed. Join us.
Denial, is old and dead amongst the well informed. Join us.
That kind of consensus is actually worrying to me. It makes it seem like there is very little effort going into ensuring that all the research the climate scientists are doing doesn't have errors.
In other words, in the echo chamber there are no critics.
Kinda like the dumb ideas that occasionally come out of SF because nobody there knows about the real problems that real people have, they just know about the trivial problems that they as single dudes in SF have.
In other words, in the echo chamber there are no critics.
Kinda like the dumb ideas that occasionally come out of SF because nobody there knows about the real problems that real people have, they just know about the trivial problems that they as single dudes in SF have.
It's important to debate and open old ideas, that's true. But as far as consensus and the News, false debate is extremely damaging. This is a false debate.
Let rejection of consensus exist where an idea is unexplored or where there is actually debate.
Let rejection of consensus exist where an idea is unexplored or where there is actually debate.
It's quite the same as the fact there are incredibly few biologists who think that evolution is false. The debate is simply not worth having, even though a large number of uninformed people still don't accept it.
500+ years ago, very few scientists of that day thought the world was round.
A scientist should be able to study the other side without threat of being fired or completely losing their career.
Your viewpoint is as close-minded as many religions.
A scientist should be able to study the other side without threat of being fired or completely losing their career.
Your viewpoint is as close-minded as many religions.
I'm not saying that people should not discuss this. I'm saying that the debate is over unless substantial other facts are presented than we do now. Discussion value based on evidence and not conjecture. Claiming that this is the same as the dogma and falsehood of religions is plain insulting.
Besides, the last time anyone thought the world was flat was a lot longer ago than 500 years, and 'scientists' as such did not exist yet.
Besides, the last time anyone thought the world was flat was a lot longer ago than 500 years, and 'scientists' as such did not exist yet.
The thing that bugs me is that there's all this "it's CO2 stupid!!!" and a lot less "what if it were something else?"
Has the planet gotten warmer in the last 150 years? Yes.
Does that correlate with increasing CO2 concentration? Yes.
Does that prove the causal link? No.
There are about a million confounding factors that could disprove that causality. I mean there are enough man-made refrigerants in the atmosphere to literally blow a hole in the ozone layer. That's a real, proven, nobody-argues-about-it thing.
But if you look at the wikipedia refrigerants page you can see their Global Warming Potential (GWP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refrigerants Many of them are quite high, such that even at tiny concentrations they can have a significant impact.
The wikipedia page on CO2 emissions has this picture, which shows that tropospheric ozone, methane, nitrogen dioxide and the refrigerants combine to have as much impact as CO2 does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmos...
That to me says that things are pretty complicated. The idea that our understanding of something that's complicated like that MIGHT not be complete isn't unreasonable.
Furthermore a lot of people say "climate change is settled, we need to do something about CO2" and I don't buy that argument. MAYBE climate change is settled, but even if it is there's a lot that can be done without even touching CO2 and all the economic pain and/or non-compliance to agreements that'll happen.
What I mean is that it might well be easier to deal with methane, NO2, and refrigerants than CO2. If it doesn't require the entire world giving up on developed country standards of living in the near future that's going to be a much easier sell. Mandating efficiency doesn't work re: jevons; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Putting hard limits on emissions in the developed world is doable but nearly impossible in the developing world.
And even if we could get all the countries in the world to agree to hard limits on emissions, it's got to be population based, not history-based (i.e. the developed countries get larger quotas because they're already developed) or else you're basically making the undeveloped world slaves to the developed world. But even if you could somehow get the entire world to agree to such a thing, it's still terrible for one of two reasons:
1. if individuals can sell their quota on the open market fraud will be rampant since verification is impossible
2. if they can't, their governments will do so for them and we'll continue to prop up dictators all around the world
Neither is a very defensible moral position to take.
So while I'm less skeptical of climate change today than I was 10 years ago I am not 100% convinced as of yet (since complex things are complex). And all the "obvious" solutions to the problems even if I were to say "sure, it's a big enough problem we gotta do whatever we can!" end up with neutered, bad or horrible outcomes for the world. Possibly even in a worse way than if climate change continues.
EDIT: The other thing I'll mention is that we already have proven success on the trace gas emissions problem. The ozone hole should eventually close now that the problem has been solved. Rather than attacking energy (which is a multi-trillion dollar industry and affects every person on the planet) perhaps going after other sources would be more fruitful. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozon...
Has the planet gotten warmer in the last 150 years? Yes.
Does that correlate with increasing CO2 concentration? Yes.
Does that prove the causal link? No.
There are about a million confounding factors that could disprove that causality. I mean there are enough man-made refrigerants in the atmosphere to literally blow a hole in the ozone layer. That's a real, proven, nobody-argues-about-it thing.
But if you look at the wikipedia refrigerants page you can see their Global Warming Potential (GWP). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refrigerants Many of them are quite high, such that even at tiny concentrations they can have a significant impact.
The wikipedia page on CO2 emissions has this picture, which shows that tropospheric ozone, methane, nitrogen dioxide and the refrigerants combine to have as much impact as CO2 does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmos...
That to me says that things are pretty complicated. The idea that our understanding of something that's complicated like that MIGHT not be complete isn't unreasonable.
Furthermore a lot of people say "climate change is settled, we need to do something about CO2" and I don't buy that argument. MAYBE climate change is settled, but even if it is there's a lot that can be done without even touching CO2 and all the economic pain and/or non-compliance to agreements that'll happen.
What I mean is that it might well be easier to deal with methane, NO2, and refrigerants than CO2. If it doesn't require the entire world giving up on developed country standards of living in the near future that's going to be a much easier sell. Mandating efficiency doesn't work re: jevons; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Putting hard limits on emissions in the developed world is doable but nearly impossible in the developing world.
And even if we could get all the countries in the world to agree to hard limits on emissions, it's got to be population based, not history-based (i.e. the developed countries get larger quotas because they're already developed) or else you're basically making the undeveloped world slaves to the developed world. But even if you could somehow get the entire world to agree to such a thing, it's still terrible for one of two reasons:
1. if individuals can sell their quota on the open market fraud will be rampant since verification is impossible
2. if they can't, their governments will do so for them and we'll continue to prop up dictators all around the world
Neither is a very defensible moral position to take.
So while I'm less skeptical of climate change today than I was 10 years ago I am not 100% convinced as of yet (since complex things are complex). And all the "obvious" solutions to the problems even if I were to say "sure, it's a big enough problem we gotta do whatever we can!" end up with neutered, bad or horrible outcomes for the world. Possibly even in a worse way than if climate change continues.
EDIT: The other thing I'll mention is that we already have proven success on the trace gas emissions problem. The ozone hole should eventually close now that the problem has been solved. Rather than attacking energy (which is a multi-trillion dollar industry and affects every person on the planet) perhaps going after other sources would be more fruitful. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozon...
> Does that prove the causal link? No.
Yes, for all reasonable definitions of 'prove', the vast amount of evidence collected that is a proven fact. Although correlation of one metric does not necessarily imply causation of some other, evidence upon evidence upon evidence does imply causation. And that is what we have.
The fact that you can casually obtain this information from Wikipedia already means that the scientific community is open to, and aware of, other greenhouse gases. Your information also confirms that CO2 in itself is probably the biggest problem. It is also the one that people likely can control most in their day-to-day lives. So if that's what's driving public policy, that's probably not a bad thing either.
Yes, for all reasonable definitions of 'prove', the vast amount of evidence collected that is a proven fact. Although correlation of one metric does not necessarily imply causation of some other, evidence upon evidence upon evidence does imply causation. And that is what we have.
The fact that you can casually obtain this information from Wikipedia already means that the scientific community is open to, and aware of, other greenhouse gases. Your information also confirms that CO2 in itself is probably the biggest problem. It is also the one that people likely can control most in their day-to-day lives. So if that's what's driving public policy, that's probably not a bad thing either.
No, correlation does not imply causation. There are a dozen things which can correlate with rising temperatures and CO2 is only one of them. Some of them aren't even in/on the Earth!
Here's atmospheric methane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#mediaviewer...
Here's atmospheric refrigerants: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%2...
Here's sunspot activity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#mediaviewer/File:Su...
Here's a paper that shows that poor station siting could explain all the upwards trend in temperatures: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pd... Here's the website journaling the research: http://www.surfacestations.org/
Here's the Wikipedia page that would tend to indicate that such a journal isn't a sham made up by the Koch brothers to discredit climate science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Geophysical_Research
Remember, "prove" means that ANY reliable information to the contrary overwhelms all the other evidence and/or theories because at it's core science is about falsifiability. If your theory cannot be falsified by new evidence, it's not science, it's religion.
Here's atmospheric methane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#mediaviewer...
Here's atmospheric refrigerants: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter%2...
Here's sunspot activity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#mediaviewer/File:Su...
Here's a paper that shows that poor station siting could explain all the upwards trend in temperatures: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pd... Here's the website journaling the research: http://www.surfacestations.org/
Here's the Wikipedia page that would tend to indicate that such a journal isn't a sham made up by the Koch brothers to discredit climate science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Geophysical_Research
Remember, "prove" means that ANY reliable information to the contrary overwhelms all the other evidence and/or theories because at it's core science is about falsifiability. If your theory cannot be falsified by new evidence, it's not science, it's religion.
I can't tell whether you are deliberately being dishonest or genuinely don't understand how to have a proper debate.
> Correlation does not imply causation.
You can't simply wave this around to invalidate information that does not suit your liking. You can use also use this statement to disqualify the fact that sex causes the spread of AIDS. It's a hollow statement if the evidence is overwhelming.
You can point to all other contributing factors to climate change. Yes, climate change is complex, there are many contributing factors, and not all of them are CO2. It's very important to realize, but these things are not ignored. In any case, those do not invalidate the claim that CO2 is one of the most important driving factors of current climate change, and that it is man-made.
Next you pretend that it is somehow a religion. Thirty to fifty years of gathering information, getting to know our environment and recognizing patterns in them is not a religion. That is an insult to all hard work humanity has put into this partial understanding of our world. There are thousands of ways to falsify man-made climate change (eg. CO2 increase is largest on the ocean floor, temperatures decrease over ten years, molecular nitrogen is found to be a significant greenhouse gas) none of which have any real support.
In the end you are advocating critical debate, which is fine. But don't do that by ignoring the larger discussion and only picking out the parts you like.
> Correlation does not imply causation.
You can't simply wave this around to invalidate information that does not suit your liking. You can use also use this statement to disqualify the fact that sex causes the spread of AIDS. It's a hollow statement if the evidence is overwhelming.
You can point to all other contributing factors to climate change. Yes, climate change is complex, there are many contributing factors, and not all of them are CO2. It's very important to realize, but these things are not ignored. In any case, those do not invalidate the claim that CO2 is one of the most important driving factors of current climate change, and that it is man-made.
Next you pretend that it is somehow a religion. Thirty to fifty years of gathering information, getting to know our environment and recognizing patterns in them is not a religion. That is an insult to all hard work humanity has put into this partial understanding of our world. There are thousands of ways to falsify man-made climate change (eg. CO2 increase is largest on the ocean floor, temperatures decrease over ten years, molecular nitrogen is found to be a significant greenhouse gas) none of which have any real support.
In the end you are advocating critical debate, which is fine. But don't do that by ignoring the larger discussion and only picking out the parts you like.
Denial indeed. About 50% worldwide including both public and private science. You might want to look into the source of that 97% and stop acting like you've got everything figured out.
There are 7.8 billion people on the planet, all consuming, reproducing, driving and expelling, burning, cutting, killing, clearing, digging, and searching for the American dream. The very existence of humankind is now completely outside of the natural food cycle. Most everything humans eat is farmed in numbers by weight that you or I simply can not imagine. Our economy is based on the processing and consumption of planetary resources multiplied by a rate of exponential growth. There are over 1 billion cars on the planet, and 2,300 coal power plants. 1.3 billion cows bred almost solely for human consumption, each cow eats about 4 tons of food per year. Humans are killing all the animals, burning all the fossil fuels, and toxifying all the potable water. We give back to the natural cycle; plastic garbage, VOCs, heavy metals, radioactive waste, trillions of tons of carbon bonded to oxygen. The only other organism that functions with such destruction and haste is a virus.
There is no mistake and scientists are not confused. This is the 6 major extinction the planet has ever seen in its 4.5 billion years of existence. This extinction is occurring faster than the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago. If humans all disappeared today, it would take the planet 12 million years to repair the damage we have done. In human terms, that 12 million years longer than human existence itself.
Oh and CO2 (produced by all human action), and methane (of which cows produce tons) are greenhouse gases proven to increase temperatures of an inclosed area when IR light is applied.
> you've got everything figured out
I'm not going to pretend I don't, so you can feel better about your unfortunate unwillingness to accept the obvious and unfortunate truth.
There is no mistake and scientists are not confused. This is the 6 major extinction the planet has ever seen in its 4.5 billion years of existence. This extinction is occurring faster than the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago. If humans all disappeared today, it would take the planet 12 million years to repair the damage we have done. In human terms, that 12 million years longer than human existence itself.
Oh and CO2 (produced by all human action), and methane (of which cows produce tons) are greenhouse gases proven to increase temperatures of an inclosed area when IR light is applied.
> you've got everything figured out
I'm not going to pretend I don't, so you can feel better about your unfortunate unwillingness to accept the obvious and unfortunate truth.
Boy, someone's got you peeing your pants haven't they? You understand that word soup like this doesn't mean anything right? Especially when science is indeed not on your side.
1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can demonstrate, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change IS occurring;
2. There is no entry fee;
3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;
4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;
5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.
Obviously not hard to see how a global warming denier could get away with not paying anybody.
Does anybody seriously believe that would prove anything either?