http://io9.com/scientist-offers-10-000-to-anyone-who-can-disprove-cli-1595320736 A scientist is offering $10,000 to anyone who can disprove climate change! Should be super simple, since you've already disproven it. Maybe you can take us all out for beers with the free money!
I think there is climate change. The guy is putting up a strawman fallacy of an argument. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266 Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore. Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV "science guy," say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space. What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide.
The "Deniers" aren't the ones saying the science is settled. Warmists claim that they have proven AGW, though. I'll pay this guy $10k if he can prove AGW is a FACT.
The article says: Outraged by the unsavory tactics of climate change deniers, physicist Christopher Keating says he'll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that human-instigated climate change isn't real. If the scientist really want to make this a real challenge he should put it in writing and let a 3rd party hold the money with an independent person making the decision if challenge was met. Then it would be an interesting proposition, IMO.
What if I believe we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, but its effect is vastly overstated? I think that is the position of scientists who disagree with the politicians.
The reason for that, of course, is that Republicans won't fund studies needed to smooth out unknowns in models. In fact in one thread, I said I might oppose big industrial cleansing if costs will exceed benefits, so why doesn't the government start a project to quantify costs and benefits. Guess who argued against such a study, Denny? Remember? Now you flipflop and whine that inaction is justified by...too many unknowns. Well fund the studies to make them knowns!
There is no control for any possible experiment. You can't go back in time, exterminate humanity, then measure to see if the current temperature would be different. The models are bullshit. GIGO, and it is garbage in. The atmosphere does not operate on some limited number of equations. Only a little chaos invalidates it all. You cannot accurately simulate the outcome of a basketball game. In reality, a guy might stub his toe in the shower which causes him to miss a few shots he normally makes. That's chaos. You can program in that player stubbing his toe at his house, but what about at the stadium? Now you have two cases to model. There are soooo many more than two. Chaos. If you could model a basketball game accurately, why risk injury to the players when you can use the model's results? Basketball is many many many many orders of magnitude easier to model and get right (but we never will, chaos) than the climate. I don't justify inaction because of unknowns. I justify minimal action because of what I do know.
Even if you don't believe what I bolded, it's a legitimate scientific question. Prove it. That's all I ask. Just as there being a god. Or in there not being a god.
You don't know. Maybe I can go back and exterminate humanity. You kinda make me want to. C'mon Denny, you know that's bullshit. Predicting the climate isn't like predicting the outcome of one basketball game - but you can make decent predictions about that too. You lived in Vegas. The bookies didn't go broke giving good odds that the Hornets would beat the Heat on any given night, right? You know that it's a matter of probability, rather than being able to predict the exact outcome with certainty. You don't justify anything. You simply accept at face value any data that seems to support your prejudices, and you go to great lengths to ignore any and all evidence that seems to disagree with your prejudices. barfo
Where are the glaciers that once covered the Great Lakes? Melted away due to global warming. Long before the industrial revolution. There's no reason to expect that warming is still ongoing. As the link in the opening post says, the evidence of warming is everywhere.
Bullshit, barfo. The oddsmakers might have some sense that LeBron might score 30, but they're not predicting LeBron will score 32 on 8-14 shooting with 10 free throws and 6 made 3pt shots. The odds of LeBron scoring 30 is 0% if he misses the game with the flu. The bookies also get the point spreads wrong. ALL the time. I get that you don't get it. Makes it easier for you to be duped. http://scientio.blogspot.com/2011/06/chaos-theoretic-argument-that.html
Right, and why would they? It's not actually necessary since people bet on the outcome of the game not how many free throws LeBron makes. Ok, just determined to miss the point, huh? barfo
HAHAHAHA! Denny and I are accepting that there is some data that supports AGW. We also accept that there is data that doesn't support AGW. Only your side is ignoring data. The skeptical side is considering all data available throughout history, and then wondering if AGW in the last 100 years of mankind emitting CO2 can be actually proven as the primary source for warming.
Obfuscate!! Distract!! Make fun of kids with diseases!! Why do you even post here anymore. You offer nothing.
What tortured logic you present me. For every bet, there is a winner and a loser. Ok, ties once in a while. Half of the people are wrong. When I'm being told the earth's temperature will go up 5 degrees and sea levels rise 10 feet, it is akin to predicting how many FGA and FTA. When does the fire and brimstone start?
A couple more points. The oddsmakers' objective is not to be accurate. It is to set the spread so half the people bet on one side and half the other. Otherwise the house could lose a lot of money if there is lopsided wagers on the winner. And they do bet on how many FTA LeBron will take, which player will score the first basket, and so on.
