# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  OFFER:  $30,000 if You Can Scientifically Disprove Anthropogenic Climate Change

## presence

Make it $50,000 (The Young Turks have upped the ante) see:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xwkrMQYlI 



You have until July 31, 2014 to submit your evidence.



http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...og-page_1.html




> I have heard global warming skeptics make all sorts of statements about how the science doesn't support claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the skeptics to prove their claims. And, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
> 
> I am announcing the start of the $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. The rules are easy:
> 
> 1. I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
> 
> 2. There is no entry fee;
> 
> 3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;
> ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/physicis...limate-change/



> Of course, this means that Keating will need to be convinced by the evidence -- *the competition will be won when someone presents evidence that he cannot refute* -- and he is confident that the prize will remain untouched.






> 1.I will [also] award $1,000 of my own money to anyone that can show there is valid scientific evidence indicating man made global warming is not real. It doesn't have to prove man made global warming is not real, it just needs to be valid scientific evidence against it;

----------


## thoughtomator

So, they're tripling down on advertising their ignorance of the logical fallacy of proving a negative?

They couldn't offer better evidence that they haven't a clue when it comes to actual science.

----------


## Acala

> So, they're tripling down on advertising their ignorance of the logical fallacy of proving a negative?
> 
> They couldn't offer better evidence that they haven't a clue when it comes to actual science.


Exactly.  I will give anyone $1 million who can prove that Martians are not watching us from outer space.  Can't do it?  Then I guess they are.

----------


## CaptUSA

Generally, the burden of proof should be on the one making an assertion; not the one denying it.

But, for the sake of the argument...  I will give $10,000 to anyone who can prove to me, with irrefutable scientific evidence, that this Keating guy is not a moron.  Good luck.

----------


## Ronin Truth

I think our greenhouse gas thread makes a pretty good case against human caused climate change AKA global warming.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Man-s-CO2-is-1-!!!

----------


## brandon

> I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring


These people are f-ing morons They are the worst of the worst. Psuedo intellectual dipshits who don't even understand the things their lives revolve around.

If they had even the slighted clue, they would know these two facts:

1) The scientific method is entirely incapable of ever proving anything. The output of the scientific method is only evidence supporting or refuting a hyopthesis - it's never proof. Proof doesn't exist in science
2) You can't prove a negative. I'd offer them a billion dollars to prove that ghosts don't exist. They can't do it.

----------


## dannno

Isn't it enough to be able to tear apart the case made for man made global warming? That's already been done, many many times.

----------


## torchbearer

how does one prove a negative?

----------


## CPUd

He posts some clarification:




> You didn't read the instructions clearly. The challenge is not to disprove man made global warming, the challenge is that people claim that man made global warming is not real and they can prove. I am just giving them the opportunity to do so. If they are making that statement, that means the evidence is already there.
> 
> I specifically require the scientific method to preclude 'God said so' arguments and others that are similar. I heard a guy yesterday claim that global warming is not real because it is all just a big world government conspiracy. I am sure he thinks he has proved it is not real, but that is not scientific.


He wants someone to first make the claim, then prove it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> He posts some clarification:
> 
> 
> 
> He wants someone to first make the claim, then prove it.


  And whatever they say, he'll just say "That's no proof."   Same old boring crap. <YAWN>

----------


## CPUd

> And whatever they say, he'll just say "That's no proof."   Same old boring crap. <YAWN>


He would surely say that if someone fails to prove their claim.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

These contests are always rigged.  They always come up with some bogus explanation of why the contestant is wrong and then just exit the debate entirely.

Besides, the burden of proof is on those who say that climate change IS occurring.  You can't prove a negative.

----------


## phill4paul

> These contests are always rigged.  They always come up with some bogus explanation of why the contestant is wrong and then just exit the debate entirely.


  And this right here...




> 5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.


  is why it could never go to court.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So, they're tripling down on advertising their ignorance of the logical fallacy of proving a negative?
> 
> They couldn't offer better evidence that they haven't a clue when it comes to actual science.


Exactly.

This is so outrageously ridiculous.  You can't come up with a unified "proof" that something is not occurring because there are always a million other factors that make it a mere possibility.  That's why nobody will collect the prize: because scientifically proving a negative is logically impossible.  I can't believe someone who even has that amount of money doesn't know this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He posts some clarification:
> 
> 
> 
> He wants someone to first make the claim, then prove it.


Beyond ridiculous.  Perhaps, if he was aware of the logical impossibility of proving a negative, he could have just told them that instead of offering them money to do exactly that?

----------


## juleswin

This makes me think, I wonder if one can design this as a carnival game where contestants will pay money trying to guess the answer, winner takes $1 zillion dollars prize. But seriously, can you present NASA temperature records showing that global temperatures have leveled off in last decade plus and if he tells you that the oceans absorbed all the temperature then you ask him to prove it or else pay up.

----------


## CPUd

He's not asking people to prove a negative.  Whoever wrote that article came up with the title.

You could make a claim like: "all climate patterns are natural", define 'climate patterns' and 'natural' so there is no ambiguity, and try to prove that.  But he would only have to find 1 instance where the statement is false to invalidate your proof.

There are other ways to approach it, if you can work with things that are vacuously true.

Or you could couch it in a way where "there is at least 1 instance where a climate pattern is not natural" would be a null hypothesis.

----------


## acptulsa

> These people are f-ing morons They are the worst of the worst. Psuedo intellectual dipshits who don't even understand the things their lives revolve around.
> 
> If they had even the slighted clue, they would know these two facts:
> 
> 1) The scientific method is entirely incapable of ever proving anything. The output of the scientific method is only evidence supporting or refuting a hyopthesis - it's never proof. Proof doesn't exist in science
> 2) You can't prove a negative. I'd offer them a billion dollars to prove that ghosts don't exist. They can't do it.


brandon brandon brandon.  You've been here longer than I have yet I haven't taught you a damned thing.  They aren't f'ng morons, they're worse.  They're evil propagandists.  They're not offering forty grand to prove a negative, they're pretending to so f'ng idiots will look at it and say, 'Surely if it could be done someone would do it for that, so their foolish claims must be right.'  So, they wow the idiots and it doesn't cost them a dime.  All they have to come up with is 'what ifs' and it looks like they're doing something.

Which is pseudo science, sure.  What propaganda isn't?  But if you try to argue that, instead of merely trying to disprove the negative like they said, your entry will be redacted.

They aren't being idiots, or at least they're being canny idiots.  Who but an idiot would even try to disprove a negative?  If only idiots try, then how does that reflect on 'climate change deniers' in general?  They're getting some attention, they're weeding everyone with a brain out of the other side of their 'debate', and their forty grand is perfectly safe.

My only question is why didn't they make it forty million?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> He would surely say that if someone fails to prove their claim.


And whatever they say, he'll just say "That's no proof either." Same old boring crap. <YAWN> Round and round it goes ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Put the $50K in a certified escrow account and then we'll talk.

----------


## acptulsa

> Put the $50K in a certified escrow account and then we'll talk.


Oh, and while you're at it, put someone who doesn't currently own the money in charge of framing the question and judging the arguments.  You know, the way _real_ contests are run.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Oh, and while you're at it, put someone who doesn't currently own the money in charge of framing the question and judging the arguments. You know, the way _real_ contests are run.


And it might also be helpful to hear what specific kind of scientific proof would be expected, required and accepted.

----------


## CPUd

The comment section in the link in the OP is where he is accepting submissions.  So far, over 25 submissions, here is a typical one:




> Jonathan Gal  July 2, 2014 at 10:05 PM
> 
> On my blog, I wrote a piece entitled, "Flaws In The Global Warming Hypothesis." There is a link to it, below, and I will summarize here the key points of the article, which refutes the hypothesis of the global warming hypothesis ...
> 
> 1. The Heat Capacity of CO2 (ie its ability to absorb heat) is actually lower than the Heat Capacity of Air. So, as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat actually decreases. This will create the opposite effect of what the alarmists suggest. This will cool the earth.
> 
> 2. The Thermal Conductivity of CO2 is lower than the Thermal Conductivity of Air, which means that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more reflective of heat. This will increase the reflectivity of the atmosphere for heat travelling in both directions. Heat attempting to leave the earth will be reflected back towards the earth, which will create a warming effect. However, the heat coming from the sun and trying to enter the atmosphere will also be reflected away from the earth and back out into outer space, which will have a cooling impact. So, the change in reflectivity of the atmosphere, from rising CO2 levels, has two competing impacts on the temperature of the earth. One is a cooling impact. The other is a warming impact. These two impacts will cancel each other out, creating zero net impact on the temperature of the earth.
> 
> 3. The ice core data are highly unreliable, due to questions about diffusion of CO2 through the ice cores, as well as alternative explanations for the observed data, which have not been adequately addressed.
> ...


...




> Christopher Keating  July 3, 2014 at 9:24 AM
> 
> Jonathan Gal: Your submission has been accepted and I will post it with my response as quickly as I can. It is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Heat Capacity" Watch for it but understand there are over 25 submissions ahead of you. Please be patient.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Another gimmick for advertising.  Or just another gimmick that's be done a zillion times.  Or whatever.  Reminds of the latest fad where the high school nerd asks and gets a date with the cheerleader from a girly magazine.

----------


## buenijo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHwhb8C8to

Just one of countless perspectives that challenge the alarmist global warming/climate change dogma.

----------


## buenijo

http://www.globalresearch.ca/guy-mcp...nction/5386102

Don't bother - we'll all be dead in 20 years anyway.

----------


## PRB

> And it might also be helpful to hear what specific kind of scientific proof would be expected, required and accepted.


for starters

1. the CO2 explanation fails to explain something
2. A better explanation and cause is available
3. there is positive evidence for the alternative explanation, and we can backtrack, retrospectively 'predict' in blind temperatures in the past
4. again the alternative explanation should, at minimum, coherently explain all observed temperatures, anomolies, and predictions, since CO2 is currently the best explanation

----------


## PRB

> 2) You can't prove a negative. I'd offer them a billion dollars to prove that ghosts don't exist. They can't do it.


If you can't prove the negative, you ought not CLAIM the negative. People who claim AGW is a hoax are making the positive claim that there is positive evidence it's an intentional hoax, therefore can and should prove it. 

So ,it's one thing to say you don't buy it, but calling it a fraud or disproven theory? That requires evidence.

----------


## buenijo

PRB, I have been disgusted by some arguments you've made elsewhere. However, I am willing to give you benefit of doubt. Perhaps I misjudged your intentions. 

It may be that I and others are not aware of the work done since Al Gore poisoned the well with his 2006 presentation (let's be honest - that work of his was full of holes). Other factors also have contributed to doubt including the source for the carbon credit trading scheme (a la Enron) and the strange affinity that socialists/marxists have with the AGW concept (often people with zero proficiency in science). I concede that there may be a lot of information and arguments made available since that time to support the AGW premise. It's difficult for most of us to wade through the misinformation and lies. 

Rather than requesting others to "prove" AGW to be false, perhaps you could provide specifics on how the AGW position is "incontrovertible" as so many claim. I admit to being skeptical. My choice of words shows this. However, this is a genuine inquiry. If you have knowledge that we do not, then you should take on the role of teacher. Educate us. Please do not merely refer abstractly to the work of others. You should outline their work as best you can to make the case. I can't anticipate the reaction from others, but I promise to take it in without undue criticism.

NOTE: I suggest your starting a new thread for this purpose.

----------


## newbitech

Here is the climate change for the last 10 years in North/South America.  I see climate changing, I don't see people.  





here is more climate change on a different place for the last 3 years.  I see climate changing, I don't see people.

----------


## osan

OK, so let me make sure I have this straight: this nitwit, whoever it may be, is bravely offering $30K to anyone able to prove a negative assertion?

Wow, what brass - what courage!  Nitto-Witto's wallet is likely safe for reasons that have nothing to do with AGW, but I will now BOLDLY predict that when nobody ponies up, it will go on a rampaging series of tirades claiming AGW is proven and that the naysayers have conceded.

Oh would if I could discover the positive evidence that would establish mutual exclusion of the AGW theory - the one method by which negatives can in fact be proven.  It would be so very much fun to watch Nitto-Witto's jaw fall to the pavement as I presented to evidence in person with my satanic-pitbull lawyer standing at my side reminding him that to welch would be most unwise.  Oh, and I'd video the entire deal, including watching him cry like a little girl.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Put the $50K in a certified escrow account and then we'll talk.


The amount keeps getting higher, apparently.  First it was $30k, then it was $40k, now it's $50k...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The comment section in the link in the OP is where he is accepting submissions.  So far, over 25 submissions, here is a typical one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even as a climate change skeptic, I could explain how that doesn't prove the absence of global warming.  Apparently, the only bigger idiots than the people offering the prize are the people who try to claim it.

----------


## PRB

> PRB, I have been disgusted by some arguments you've made elsewhere. However, I am willing to give you benefit of doubt. Perhaps I misjudged your intentions. 
> 
> It may be that I and others are not aware of the work done since Al Gore poisoned the well with his 2006 presentation (let's be honest - that work of his was full of holes).


$#@! Al Gore, he's not a scientist. If you start with Al Gore, YOU are the strawman.




> Other factors also have contributed to doubt including the source for the carbon credit trading scheme (a la Enron) and the strange affinity that socialists/marxists have with the AGW concept (often people with zero proficiency in science). I concede that there may be a lot of information and arguments made available since that time to support the AGW premise. It's difficult for most of us to wade through the misinformation and lies.


Actually, both before and after, AG didn't invent AGW. Glad you admit it's difficult for you to separate political arguments from scientific ones. 




> Rather than requesting others to "prove" AGW to be false, perhaps you could provide specifics on how the AGW position is "incontrovertible" as so many claim.


1. Global warming is a proven fact, only "skeptics" will keep bringing up local cooling or statistical trends cherry picked to look like there's cooling
2. Climate change is synonymous with global warming, IPCC's CC stands for climate change, it's not an Orwellian change or words to reduce burden of proof

The first 2 things are just to set up the premise on the right foot, they do NOT prove AGW, but they are essential

3. CO2 increase has the best correlation in prediction and explanation of warming trends (I dare anybody to try a better one)
4. The sun as a cause has not been true for 35 years (so anybody who says this is either going to need new data, or is lying)
5. Greenhouse effect has long been experimentally proven
6. The argument about CO2 not being the primary greenhouse gas? Ignores the fact that CO2, unlike water vapor, not only increases perpetually, but also fails to phase change. Put simply, if water vapor is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas, that would still fail to explain recent warming trends as there is no comparable increase of it to attribute correlation. (Correlation doesn't mean causation, but lacking it sure as hell means lacking it)
7. Once we've established that CO2 is the primary cause (open to being proven wrong, unless and until a better predictor is tested and vindicated), we can now look at WHO is causing the CO2. Luckily, we can actually distinguish between man made and natural CO2, so the argument about volcanoes, oceans releasing CO2? fails on both facts and numbers. 

This doesn't mean AGW is absolutely proven true or can't be proven wrong, but it's as sure as any other scientific theory based on all evidence available.

If you can show
1. What evidence is ignored or failed to be explained
2. What alternative explanation, keyword here, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE SAME FACTS can provide a better explanation
3. What alternative explanation, can actually make a BETTER prediction
Then you MIGHT come close to proving AGW to be false or problematic. 

So far there is NONE. All the arguments are "What if, and what about" single line challenges that ignore the whole picture and body of knowledge.

----------


## PRB

> Here is the climate change for the last 10 years in North/South America.  I see climate changing, I don't see people.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is more climate change on a different place for the last 3 years.  I see climate changing, I don't see people.


yep, if you don't see people, that's proof they don't exist.

----------


## PRB

> However, this is a genuine inquiry.


Really? As in you've read through all the basics and still have problems? 

Have you considered everything available on the site skepticalscience.com ? Can you tell me what problem you have with this site if you didn't outright dismiss it?




> If you have knowledge that we do not, then you should take on the role of teacher. Educate us.


I can't make you learn, but I can point to you where I get my information and encourage you to ask the same questions I have. The "challenges" from "skeptics" are always disingenuous and childish ones which fail to even consider basic facts. As you can see from Foundation's post, he desperatelyl clings on to ONE era of time as his evidence and ignores the rest. When I ask him to make predictions, he either admits he can't or says he'll predict the same result just using the sun (this would settle that he doesn't have a problem with global warming, but then he has to know, if he's intellectually honest, that he has no data to support his predictions, and if he expects the same warming predicted by CO2 warmists, he must borrow their calculations). 

Again, the sun being the cause has already been false for 35 years, people just can't honestly defend it as an explanation anymore unless there's better data that came to light.




> Please do not merely refer abstractly to the work of others. You should outline their work as best you can to make the case.


I believe I start by making my own re-phrased points, then I point to a site that does a fairly good job dumbing down peer reviewed articles for layman like you. 

www.skepticalscience.com they also do a good job of directly addressing the counter points. So you can not make any of these arguments UNLESS you've seen the response and have a new response. That's how discourse work. 




> I can't anticipate the reaction from others, but I promise to take it in without undue criticism.
> 
> NOTE: I suggest your starting a new thread for this purpose.


I'll stay here, thanks. I don't think there's enough interest in this forum to warrant a new thread, but you're free to start one, just PM me if you don't see me on there, I don't monitor everything here.

----------


## acptulsa

> 6. The argument about CO2 not being the primary greenhouse gas? Ignores the fact that CO2, unlike water vapor, not only increases perpetually, but also fails to phase change. Put simply, if water vapor is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas, that would still fail to explain recent warming trends as there is no comparable increase of it to attribute correlation. (Correlation doesn't mean causation, but lacking it sure as hell means lacking it)


Nobody seems to be trying to correlate it.

Oklahoma has more shoreline than any other state.  Yes, you read that right.  There are larger states bordering oceans that don't have as much shoreline as Oklahoma does.  We have dammed up every river _at least_ once each, and more than a few creeks and streams too.  And all that water, besides generating some electricity and giving us a place to play with our boats, sits and evaporates and sits and evaporates and sits and evaporates.

I have it from people who remember that our summers are far stickier than they were sixty years ago.

Man-made climate change?  Yes.  Carbon taxes will fix it?  No.  They will make the rich richer, they will make the poor poorer, they will point up how abysmal American mass transit is.  But they won't fix the problem if a large part of the problem is evaporation from behind Corps of Engineers dams.

----------


## PRB

> Man-made climate change?  Yes.  Carbon taxes will fix it?  No.


No disagreement from me. So if we can only settle on this one instead of people lying and shouting "AGW IS A SCAM BECAUSE AL GORE IS RICH OFF HIS FILM" or "AGW CAN'T BE REAL, BECAUSE IF IT IS, I'D GLADLY PAY CARBON TAXES", we'd probably save everybody some time and make a little "progress". 

I'm against carbon taxes, but for knowing the best predictions and being prepared for it.

If we could predict earthquakes, would you sit back and say "yeah, but it's natural, no taxes will fix it anyway, so why care?" or be as prepared as you can and forget what's causing it especially if you can't stop it?

----------


## PRB

> Nobody seems to be trying to correlate it.


Oh really? then whoever brings it up, like Mr. Foundation, would be dishonest. He seems so confident that water vapor outdoes any effect of CO2 based on his own understanding of numbers (not evidence)

----------


## Dr.3D

Is this what is supposed to be taught in political science class?   It's political, but it's not exactly science.  In politics, there are way too many unknown variables and many of them are apt to stab one in the back.

----------


## acptulsa

> Is this what is supposed to be taught in political science class?   It's political, but it's not exactly science.  In politics, there are way too many unknown variables and many of them are apt to stab one in the back.


The exact same thing can be said of real science, where any large, complex system is involved.  Though it's one's erroneous conclusions that tend to be stabbed in the back.

----------


## buenijo

PRB, yes my inquiry is genuine. I'll take a look at the web site you suggested. What I'm looking for is a sound and compelling argument to support the premise that AGW both exists and warrants our intervention (not necessarily governmental). I'm looking for "incontrovertible" (a word often associated with AGW claims) evidence that it will cause significant climate disruptions that will prove detrimental on net balance (particularly to human life). Anything you can do to help my efforts will be appreciated. In particular, perhaps you could steer me to a source that can show global climate models currently in use to have high accuracy with respect to predictive power. 

I offer again that you should start a thread on the topic, and primarily for the purpose of education. For example, I have an interest in alternative energy technologies. I started (and/or maintain) several threads for education in biomass gasification, off grid photovoltaics, and small scale steam power. If you consider the AGW topic to be important and/or interesting, and you understand it better than most, then this kind of thread should be beneficial to all.

----------


## PRB

> PRB, yes my inquiry is genuine. I'll take a look at the web site you suggested. What I'm looking for is a sound and compelling argument to support the premise that AGW both exists and warrants our intervention (not necessarily governmental).


I think the site does a fairly good job at supporting the premise that AGW exists.
I don't think anybody can convince you something warrants intervention unless you personally care. I can't convince you to get out of your house if it's falling unless you want to, I can only tell you it's falling. 




> I'm looking for "incontrovertible" (a word often associated with AGW claims) evidence that it will cause significant climate disruptions that will prove detrimental on net balance (particularly to human life).


That can easily be subjective, do you consider Sandy and Katrina to be "detrimental on balance"?




> Anything you can do to help my efforts will be appreciated. In particular, perhaps you could steer me to a source that can show global climate models currently in use to have high accuracy with respect to predictive power.


Ok, I'll get those for you. 

Here's 2.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0411153453.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.U7mQtrFhvqw


In the meantime, enjoy the detractors who fail to show a more accurate one.




> then this kind of thread should be beneficial to all.


No, it wouldn't, not to those who refuse to listen or are still hung up on whether global warming is even happening. With that said, I don't mind conversing with somebody who is willing to listen.

----------


## buenijo

PRB, I've been perusing the web site. So far I cannot find a clear definition of "Climate Change Denial" or "Climate Change Skepticism" (or variants thereof) despite these terms being in use. I'm not requesting definitions from you, but this observation brings up a point that may be relevant. Also, I wish to comment on your noting the "subjective" qualities of my inquiries.

I made a personal study of AGW about 7 years ago. My study included the reading of several books on the topic, internet study, and considering the claims on both sides of the issue. One observation in particular that led to my skepticism includes the wide spectrum of positions taken by scientists who are decidedly proponents of AGW. This spectrum exists today, and it seems to have grown wider. _Clearly there must exist a strong subjective quality to the science for so many professionals to deviate widely in their conclusions._  A persistent vagueness seems to be a contributing factor. For example, without a clear definition to suggest the contrary, then I consider myself as representing the AGW position - at least at one end of the spectrum. After all, I accept the premise that increasing net atmospheric CO2 concentrations via industry can affect climate. Since CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, then I consider it reasonable to conclude that, on net balance, this process can increase average global temperatures _all else equal_. However, my contention with the majority of the AGW proponents is focused on what I consider to be unjustified (and unjustifiable) assertions and extrapolations. Indeed, _the wide variance in the assertions made by scientists on the matter is a testament to this dynamic_. Quite simply, when so many professionals fail to agree, then this suggests strongly that subjective forces are at work - certainly it shows that the science is anything but settled. Sure, perhaps 97% of climate scientists can agree that the emissions from industry can have a warming effect, but this oft-cited "consensus" is not useful. I believe the wide variance in the scientific community, in and of itself, warrants a position of skepticism among the general public. However, there are other considerations that I believe should reinforce this skeptical stance.These include (but are not limited to) political and financial motivations. While these do not play into the science directly, they do have the ability to influence otherwise objective minds _when the underlying science does not indicate an unambiguous conclusion_.

I take the position that, to be useful, the science of AGW must be able to show not merely that our increasing net CO2 concentrations can increase average global temperatures and affect climate. It must be able to show conclusively how the effects of the process will manifest. I emphasize that, if this cannot be done, then the science of AGW *is not compromised.* Rather, there will simply not exist sufficient justification for legislation and other wholesale governmental interventions. After all, just because the science is incomplete does not warrant its dismissal. _You have emphatically noted elsewhere that you do not advocate for government interventions to counter AGW_, and I consider this to be the only sober position to take. However, I do wonder that, if government intervention is not warranted, then what sort of intervention is implied by the science? Again, I emphasize the wide variance among scientists on the matter. At one end of the spectrum (as represented by my current view), the implied action is to do very little if anything. I might advocate for living a frugal and simple life with little or no debts as this would afford mobility to address future changes. Of course, I advise this for other reasons (namely economic, political, and moral). Those in the middle of the spectrum who believe major climatic disruptions to be unavoidable might take a more focused approach to include preemptive actions like moving to a particular region and adopting permaculture strategies. Finally, at the opposite extreme there are personalities like Guy McPherson who argues that the science of AGW indicates the imminent extinction of the human race. What does this imply other than perhaps to not start a family and take measures to die as painlessly as possible?

In summary, I hope you can understand and forgive a measure of skepticism among rational individuals on this matter. Also, after reading this, I wonder if my position is not so far from your own. I've often found that a certain measure of agreement is often achieved with clarity. What do you think?

----------


## PRB

> PRB, I've been perusing the web site. So far I cannot find a clear definition of "Climate Change Denial" or "Climate Change Skepticism" (or variants thereof) despite these terms being in use. I'm not requesting definitions from you, but this observation brings up a point that may be relevant. Also, I wish to comment on your noting the "subjective" qualities of my inquiries.


I'll give you the best definitions I can think of and you'll probably hear it used the same way amongst scientists. 

A skeptic is a person who doesn't readily accept things as told him, BUT will be convinced if evidence becomes available and compels him to.
A denier, on the other hand, takes no thought and requires no knowledge. He can, and often does, simple deny what is given to him, when asked what it would take to change his mind, he either has no answer or requires one which is unreasonable by his own standard. 

Neither of the above are the same as people who use false information, whether intentionally or ignorantly. People who claim the globe is cooling or that it's impossible for humans to cause climate change.




> I made a personal study of AGW about 7 years ago. My study included the reading of several books on the topic, internet study, and considering the claims on both sides of the issue. One observation in particular that led to my skepticism includes the wide spectrum of positions taken by scientists who are decidedly proponents of AGW. This spectrum exists today, and it seems to have grown wider. _Clearly there must exist a strong subjective quality to the science for so many professionals to deviate widely in their conclusions._  A persistent vagueness seems to be a contributing factor. For example, without a clear definition to suggest the contrary, then I consider myself as representing the AGW position - at least at one end of the spectrum.


Sounds about right, but what your position is is less important compared to why you take such a position.




> After all, I accept the premise that increasing net atmospheric CO2 concentrations via industry can affect climate.


Obviously a much more open minded position than those who have already decided it's impossible.




> Since CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, then I consider it reasonable to conclude that, on net balance, this process can increase average global temperatures _all else equal_.


Correct, keyword all else equal. Which is not always the case. 




> However, my contention with the majority of the AGW proponents is focused on what I consider to be unjustified (and unjustifiable) assertions and extrapolations. Indeed, _the wide variance in the assertions made by scientists on the matter is a testament to this dynamic_. Quite simply, when so many professionals fail to agree, then this suggests strongly that subjective forces are at work - certainly it shows that the science is anything but settled.


Excuse me? the fact they don't agree on everything means it's not settled? You must not understand what they are claiming to be settled then.

Here's what's SETTLED. (even settled things are subject to disproving, by the way)

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Humans are capable of increasing CO2 or any other gas to affect climate
3. The globe is warming overall, over time, and appreciable since industrialization
4. CO2 is the best explanation for why the globe is warming

They may not all agree on how many degrees or how many inches of sea level rise, how soon we'll have an iceless arctic, but the agree on all of the above. So, some things are settled, some are not. 




> Sure, perhaps 97% of climate scientists can agree that the emissions from industry can have a warming effect, but this oft-cited "consensus" is not useful. I believe the wide variance in the scientific community, in and of itself, warrants a position of skepticism among the general public.


The general public is not obligated to believe anything. 




> However, there are other considerations that I believe should reinforce this skeptical stance.These include (but are not limited to) political and financial motivations.


Which you have not heard me ONCE disagree with you. I have said EVERY SINGLE TIME I WAS ASKED. I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST ANY REGULATIONS AND TAXES (I won't even qualify it with carbon emissions, I'm against all regulations and taxes, period). 

If you are accusing scientists of having political or financial motivations, you ought to first hear how well deniers and denier cited scientists pass such a test. And then ask yourself where else do you EVER ask so many questions. I think I already know the answer "You only care now because you fear carbon taxes, everywhere else where science can't lead to taxation, you might just accept things as they're told and presented. If you were guaranteed there would be no new taxes or regulations, you might not even care whether the globe is warming or cooling"

----------


## PRB

> I take the position that, to be useful, the science of AGW must be able to show not merely that our increasing net CO2 concentrations can increase average global temperatures and affect climate. It must be able to show conclusively how the effects of the process will manifest.


I don't know how conclusive you need it to be, but I can tell you again and I dare anybody to prove me wrong. CO2 warmists have made the most accurate, most defensible and most testable predictions, compare that to any other competing theories and you'll see that your standard kills all others much faster.

This is where I will point out the common hypocrisy of "skeptics". 

How about you just admit you don't care unless it's political? That if you were guaranteed there would be no new taxes, you'd stop caring? Instead, you insist that CO2 warming advocates be held to a standard you know others will fail miserably on and you either don't care, or don't bother asking. Let me guess, you're singling out the prevailing theory because it's prevailing? Or again, you're holding the prevailing theory to a higher standard because...you're afraid that's the only one which will lead to more taxes?

I'll turn the question around and ask it this way : What if you were guaranteed there WILL BE a new tax and regulation REGARDLESS of whether the globe is warming or cooling? I mean, after all, it's JUST AS justified as any other tax to you (which is not at all). What then? Will you finally come out and say you're just anti-tax? Or will you go back wasting your time telling us how you're skeptical of the premises which *NOBODY IS USING?*




> I emphasize that, if this cannot be done, then the science of AGW *is not compromised.* Rather, there will simply not exist sufficient justification for legislation and other wholesale governmental interventions.


If you think that ONLY THEN will you lack sufficient justification, you're a liberal, you're part of the problem. You basically are saying "just prove to me AGW is real and carbon taxes will fix it, and I'll gladly pay"

Until you can be a tax denier like me, who will say with a straight face "you can tell me that carbon taxes will save the world from starvation and aliens and I'll still be against it no matter what the good it brings", you can keep arguing with taxers. I won't. I just say what I mean and mean what I say, I'm against taxation regardless of who advocates for it and regardless of what good it does. 




> However, I do wonder that, if government intervention is not warranted, then what sort of intervention is implied by the science? Again, I emphasize the wide variance among scientists on the matter. At one end of the spectrum (as represented by my current view), the implied action is to do very little if anything.


What do you consider earthquake preparation to be? Little to nothing? Or a burdensome cost? 

What intervention do you want for earthquakes? Remember, we CAN'T PREDICT THEM. If we could, would your permission for government intervention change?




> In summary, I hope you can understand and forgive a measure of skepticism among rational individuals on this matter. Also, after reading this, I wonder if my position is not so far from your own. I've often found that a certain measure of agreement is often achieved with clarity. What do you think?


I think I gave you a clear definition of a skeptic vs a denier. And a rational and honest position vs a dishonest one. I think we can agree more than we disagree, but I am again, open to changing my mind.

----------


## buenijo

PRB, forgive me for not addressing every point. First, I think it's important to note that everyone is biased. I believe a quality of every good scientist (or rational individual) is recognition of this fact. After all, minding this tendency is necessary to keep it in check. Second, with respect, I advise that you not attribute to me any particular bias without evidence. Note that this represents a straw man attack. Third, a minor point, but I did emphasize in italics your position on regulations and taxes.

I do not see a substantive difference between our positions on the AGW issue. We both agree that CO2 emissions by industry could contribute to global warming _ceteris paribus_, and we both agree that government should not be used to combat this perceived problem. The only difference seems to be a matter of degree. My position represents one end of the AGW spectrum, whereas your position seems to lie somewhere near the center of the spectrum. I'm still not quite sure where, but I'm interested to understand. In particular, I'm interested to _know_ the details of your position. How _will_ climate be disrupted in the future, and what _uncontested facts_  and arguments lead you to these conclusions? The specifics of your position interests me quite simply because you _know_ something that I do not, and I'm interested to learn. As it stands now, I take the position that I do not _know_ how climate might be disrupted in the future due to AGW. My position is one of humility. It’s analogous to that part of the Hippocratic Oath often considered to mean “do no harm.” Outside government interventions (for which, again, we both do not support), it would not be an economic decision for an individual to act in the face of a perceived threat that proves to be false. Therefore, it's important for me to have reliable _knowledge_ of how climate disruptions from AGW will manifest in the coming years.

Since you _know_ that severe climate disruptions from AGW are on the way, and how these will manifest, then please explain how you have arrived at your conclusions that I might prepare in the same order as yourself.

----------


## Carson

But isn't it unlimited funding for anyone anywhere coming up with anything that implies man made global warming?

----------


## Carson

*Climategate: the video everyone should see*




http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ne-should-see/

----------


## Dr.3D

> But isn't it unlimited funding for anyone anywhere coming up with anything that implies man made global warming?


Yes, I believe you get one of those government science jobs.

----------


## PRB

> How _will_ climate to be disrupted in the future, and what _uncontested facts_  and arguments lead you to these conclusions?


Droughts, floods, rains, hurricanes, snows, sea level rising, ice free arctic, that are more common or more severe. I think I've given you the facts which any intellectually honest person has accepted and hasn't refuted.




> The specifics of your position interests me quite simply because you _know_ something that I do not, and I'm interested to learn.


What I know is, that every time I ask a skeptic or denier to make a prediction, he shuts the hell up, that alone is enough to not take him seriously. 

That doesn't mean AGW advocates are right, it just means nobody can show where and how they are wrong, or give us a better explanation and prediction. 




> As it stands now, I take the position that I do not _know_ how climate might be disrupted in the future due to AGW.


What happens when overall temperature is either too hot or too cold?

When too hot, you expect droughts in less humid areas, tropical rains & floods in tropical areas. Areas prone to hurricanes, you expect greater severity. 

When too cold, you expect heavier snow fall, higher use of heating resources, lower sea levels.

I don't think I need to tell you how either of these will affect agriculture. And I'm not going to guess your position on GMOs. 




> My position is one of humility. It’s analogous to that part of the Hippocratic Oath often considered to mean “do no harm.” Outside government interventions (for which, again, we both do not support), it would not be an economic decision for an individual to act in the face of a perceived threat that proves to be false. Therefore, it's important for me to have reliable _knowledge_ of how climate disruptions from AGW will manifest in the coming years.


If you're interested and open minded, I think I've given you a starter site where you can continue to read further. I by no means expect you to believe everything you read. But I can tell you what I do, I challenge skeptics and deniers to actually make an intellectually honest argument before I take them seriously, that's how I save the time of having to listen to their talking points, and not having to do their research for them just to dismiss and debunk them at the end. 




> Since you _know_ that severe climate disruptions from AGW are on the way, and how these will manifest, then please explain how you have arrived at your conclusions that I might prepare in the same order as yourself.


I don't "know" as much as I have reason to believe it's highly likely. I arrive at my conclusion by knowing Sandy and Katrina happened in less than 10 years apart.

If you want to be prepared, see how they suffered, what they didn't have when they became victims. I'm sure anybody with a million dollars (not all invested in one house) would be fine. If you don't though, get creative, I'm not going to tell you what to buy. Just know how fragile your modern lifestyle is, and ask yourself how long you can live without electricity, water, heat, if you lost one at a time. 

I don't know how insurance companies have reacted to disasters like this, or whether they'd hold up their end of the promise. 

Droughts? just expect water to become expensive (which will lead to crops being expensive), things like that happen over a wide area so hoarding and moving are hard to manage. 

I hope that answers you.

----------


## RickyJ

It can't be 100% proven because of the fact that CO2 does cause a very insignificant, and I mean a very insignificant rise in temperatures with all other sources of heat and global warming gasses remaining the same. However, since the IR spectrum for CO2 has already been saturated decades ago, no further CO2 in the atmosphere would add any amount to the global warming effect whatsoever. This has already been shown by numerous scientists, yet we keep hearing about CO2 as being some sort of "pollutant" when the fact is we would all be dead without it.

----------


## PRB

> *Climategate: the video everyone should see*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ne-should-see/


telling us it was hotter in year 1000 means nothing, since nobody used air condition back then, what would happen today if everybody had to or could? 

looking at the past as if you'd want to live in those times is the silliest nonsense argument. 

you might as well tell me people lived only until 50, so therefore killing people today after 60 isn't a big deal.

next time somebody like you complains about how big pharma and GMO and wars are decreasing lifespan, I'll make sure I pull up a graph about how life was even shorter in the past, so STFU about how people are dying younger.

----------


## PRB

> It can't be 100% proven because of the fact that CO2 does cause a very insignificant, and I mean a very insignificant rise in temperatures with all other sources of heat and global warming gasses remaining the same.


You are correct that it can't be 100% proven. But you also made the positive claim that CO2 is insignificant, so the burden of proof is on you. Tell us while you're at it what we fail to consider and how you can predict future temperatures, climate using those "other sources" that are in your head "more significant"




> However, since the IR spectrum for CO2 has already been saturated decades ago, no further CO2 in the atmosphere would add any amount to the global warming effect whatsoever.


Another positive claim, I take it you're well read up on this. I'd like to see some study that confirms this. 




> This has already been shown by numerous scientists, yet we keep hearing about CO2 as being some sort of "pollutant" when the fact is we would all be dead without it.


We'd be dead without water too, doesn't mean floods don't kill people. Water isn't a pollution but something tells me you'd not appreciate it if you had a pipe leak in your house. 

Numerous scientists? Cite a few if you can. Thanks.

----------


## PRB

> But isn't it unlimited funding for anyone anywhere coming up with anything that implies man made global warming?


No, there isn't. Scientific funding is for anybody who can draw honest conclusions, not any specific result. 

If you can scientifically support alternative conclusions with evidence, you'd be just as funded.

----------


## buenijo

PRB, thank you. Wow. Just... wow!

----------


## Henry Rogue

Maybe he should offer the same amount the government has spent trying to prove that it's real.

----------


## PRB

> Maybe he should offer the same amount the government has spent trying to prove that it's real.


you don't need to, that's the point you keep missing.

----------


## jmdrake

_5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point._

----------


## green73

The warmest temperature ever recorded in the world was in Libya in 1923, in the US, 1936. Where's my money?

----------


## PRB

> _5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point._


at best he can stop you from posting on his blog, but he can't stop you from telling other people on blogs which will publish them.

as he said, he'll explain why entries fail, and he'll answer all of them (or so he says).

you are free to respond again if he's explanation isn't satisfying.

----------


## PRB

> The warmest temperature ever recorded in the world was in Libya in 1923, in the US, 1936. Where's my money?


that wasn't the question.

----------


## green73

> that wasn't the question.


True. But I think it's funny nonetheless. Hahahahahaha.

----------


## buenijo

PRB, I'll keep investigating. I remain skeptical. However, after reading your most recent posts, I have a newfound appreciation for Dr. McPherson's work. Perhaps we are doomed as a species.

----------


## Bman

There is no science to AGW.  It's just a bunch of environmental observations and an attempt to connect them through no other reason then they are there.  There is no solid proof that CO2 is the green house gas it is being suggested to be.  There is no knowledge when reviewing ice core samples whether the chicken or the egg came first(analogy to higher temperatures and CO2 levels).  There's also a lack of cooling in the upper atmosphere's of the planet.  If heat is not allowed to escape those areas should be getting cooler.  They are not.  Not to mention no increase over the past 20 years.

The AGW crowd can stick it up their asses.  Sitting their berating the God crowd (I'm Agnostic BTW) for believing in creationism while they believe the whole Universe was the size of a pin head before it went bang.  SMH.

----------


## CPUd

> *Here's what's SETTLED. (even settled things are subject to disproving, by the way)
> 
> 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas*
> 2. Humans are capable of increasing CO2 or any other gas to affect climate
> 3. The globe is warming overall, over time, and appreciable since industrialization
> 4. CO2 is the best explanation for why the globe is warming








> There is no science to AGW.  It's just a bunch of environmental observations and an attempt to connect them through no other reason then they are there.  *There is no solid proof that CO2 is the green house gas it is being suggested to be.*  There is no knowledge when reviewing ice core samples whether the chicken or the egg came first(analogy to higher temperatures and CO2 levels).  There's also a lack of cooling in the upper atmosphere's of the planet.  If heat is not allowed to escape those areas should be getting cooler.  They are not.  Not to mention no increase over the past 20 years.
> 
> The AGW crowd can stick it up their asses.  Sitting their berating the God crowd (I'm Agnostic BTW) for believing in creationism while they believe the whole Universe was the size of a pin head before it went bang.  SMH.


challenge

----------


## Lord Xar

> No, there isn't. Scientific funding is for anybody who can draw honest conclusions, not any specific result. 
> 
> If you can scientifically support alternative conclusions with evidence, you'd be just as funded.


I think it depends, as more than a few have come forward and pretty much were fired for not agreeing with the global warming agenda. So, I am not so sure government will fund someone who wants to defy/expose a government agenda of more taxation, control, a new energy commodity... with data that shows it ( government / sycophants ) might be stretching the truth a bit. Also, I'm not so sure how many would question the the very thing that pays them/finances them. Science doesn't imply morality.

----------


## Lord Xar

> you don't need to, that's the point you keep missing.


I guess this is the same reasoning used when we went to war with the "HE GOTS SOME WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!".... 
Show some data from like minded blood lust killers, supported by "evidence" from "experts" funded by said killers and bingo, you got 
yourself an air tight case. .... Now, prove it wrong?......

----------


## osan

> www.skepticalscience.com they also do a good job of directly addressing the counter points. So you can not make any of these arguments UNLESS you've seen the response and have a new response. That's how discourse work.


The site seems to suck.  For example, early on the author writes:




> Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?


...which is exactly what you would expect if the "science" of AGW were junk.  DUH.  The farther down the list of articles, the lamer the site appears.  Author quotes "experts" and so far all I have read is embarrassingly insufficient logic and whining.  If this is your idea of stout support for AGW then you have my sincere pity.

How do you address the fact that the parties involved in, and who were caught with their pants at their ankles, massaged the raw data, refused to reveal how, and tossed the raw data into the trash?  Disposing of raw data is one of the cardinal sins of scientific inquiry.  It is THE central no-no, and yet these bozos did just that, according to media reporting.  How do you explain that away?

I have no idea what climatologist training involves, but I went through the pain of thermodynamics as a mechanical engineering student and have a decent grasp of the concepts.  Given this, how is it that measurements of the heat being radiated back into space by the earth have not changed at all?  Were we heating up, those readings would not remain steady.  This is thermo-001 and it says that the heat has to go SOMEWHERE.  Many things can be argued, but the four laws of thermodynamics have yet to be disproved in any manner or degree.  Therefore, since the earth is showing no net change in heat output, claims of AGW remain unproven and, it seems, unlikely.

This ain't rocket surgery.


I would also point out that the term "climate change" is not semantically equivalent to "global warming".  I find it amusing to note this change of terminology.  "Global warming" is far more semantically specific and implies the planet is heating up.  "Climate change" may refer to a host of possible things such as warming, cooling, becoming wetter or drier, longer or shorter seasons, and so forth.  I do believe that the change in terminology was not made casually, but rather with the specific intent of playing on the ambiguous nature of the term in the hope that the average ignoramus will _assume_ it refers to warming.  Then, when it is exposed as the fraud I suspect it may be, those coming under fire can plausibly claim that they meant something else in hopes of avoiding a potentially career-ending embarrassment.

Argue in favor of AGW all you like.  The evidence is simply not there.  Proper scientific method has been notably absent, politics having been put in its place.  I do not deny warming, but neither do I accept it.  What the people at East Anglia  and Penn State did was to potentially endanger everyone on the planet because of their perfidious behavior pursuant to the ever-so-transparent pursuit of an idea to which they had apparently welded themselves.  If AGW is a fact, those people then pooched us all by their corrupt actions because we are now faced with either ignoring the issue or starting from scratch.

One does not disrupt global life at a fundamental level based on a hunch or on bull$#@! ineptly labeled as "science" by fumbling, corrupt idiots pursuing personal agendas, and that is precisely the appearance they put out to the world.  Need I point out that where the stakes are so high that even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided as virtually all cost?  Those people failed in spectacularly miserable fashion and their work merits no further consideration, once again leaving us with the choice to say "screw it" or to start anew from scratch.  Way to go, ass-wipes.

----------


## newbitech

> yep, if you don't see people, that's proof they don't exist.


that about sums it up.

----------


## PRB

> How do you address the fact that the parties involved in, and who were caught with their pants at their ankles, massaged the raw data, refused to reveal how, and tossed the raw data into the trash?


Easy, it didn't happen. You bought the stupid media lie that climategate was based on fake data or somehow global warming depended on it.

Sorry, but they don't own the data, everybody is free to use the same data and examine them again.

There's not one investigation that's actually turned up any wrongdoing from climategate.

they can't toss raw data because they're not the only ones who have it.




> Disposing of raw data is one of the cardinal sins of scientific inquiry.  It is THE central no-no, and yet these bozos did just that, according to media reporting.  How do you explain that away?


The media told the whole lie about disposing raw data. 




> I have no idea what climatologist training involves, but I went through the pain of thermodynamics as a mechanical engineering student and have a decent grasp of the concepts.  Given this, how is it that measurements of the heat being radiated back into space by the earth have not changed at all?


Is that even true? Citation please?




> Were we heating up, those readings would not remain steady.  This is thermo-001 and it says that the heat has to go SOMEWHERE.


On the surface I agree with you, assuming what you say is true, what is the contradiction? We're heating up, and less radiation is being lost into space, as it's trapped internally (whether the loss and gain is constant enough to balance out, I do not know)




> Many things can be argued, but the four laws of thermodynamics have yet to be disproved in any manner or degree.  Therefore, since the earth is showing no net change in heat output, claims of AGW remain unproven and, it seems, unlikely.


Global warming is determined by *HEAT OUTPUT??*




> This ain't rocket surgery.
> 
> I would also point out that the term "climate change" is not semantically equivalent to "global warming".


It is. What you gonna say now? that it's an Orwellian change in terms?




> I find it amusing to note this change of terminology.  "Global warming" is far more semantically specific and implies the planet is heating up.  "Climate change" may refer to a host of possible things such as warming, cooling, becoming wetter or drier, longer or shorter seasons, and so forth.


Please, not this $#@! again.

The term was used as early as 1956. What do you think the CC in IPCC stands for? Founded in 1988.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...al-warming.htm




> I do believe that the change in terminology was not made casually, but rather with the specific intent of playing on the ambiguous nature of the term in the hope that the average ignoramus will _assume_ it refers to warming.  Then, when it is exposed as the fraud I suspect it may be, those coming under fire can plausibly claim that they meant something else in hopes of avoiding a potentially career-ending embarrassment.


Well, then it would have been done early on, and not in response to alleged recent scandals.




> Argue in favor of AGW all you like.  The evidence is simply not there.


What required evidence do you find missing?




> Proper scientific method has been notably absent, politics having been put in its place.


How so?




> I do not deny warming, but neither do I accept it.  What the people at East Anglia  and Penn State did was to potentially endanger everyone on the planet because of their perfidious behavior pursuant to the ever-so-transparent pursuit of an idea to which they had apparently welded themselves.  If AGW is a fact, those people then pooched us all by their corrupt actions because we are now faced with either ignoring the issue or starting from scratch.


No, they've been investigated, no wrongdoing has been found, everybody can move on. They don't need to start from scratch because they are not what scientific studies depend on, they are but one of many people who've reached the same conclusions. Your belief that people must either bury the story or start over depends on them being the masters of the theory or something like it.




> One does not disrupt global life at a fundamental level based on a hunch or on bull$#@! ineptly labeled as "science" by fumbling, corrupt idiots pursuing personal agendas, and that is precisely the appearance they put out to the world.  Need I point out that where the stakes are so high that even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided as virtually all cost?  Those people failed in spectacularly miserable fashion and their work merits no further consideration, once again leaving us with the choice to say "screw it" or to start anew from scratch.  Way to go, ass-wipes.


Good thing is, we don't need them. They can all die tomorrow, you can burn everything they wrote, and the same data will still tell the same story. 

Nobody has stopped skeptics from examining the same data available, nobody has been able to reach an alternative conclusion.

----------


## PRB

> I think it depends, as more than a few have come forward and pretty much were fired for not agreeing with the global warming agenda.


Such as who? This isn't Expelled. Science is not about your opinion, it's about what you can prove. 




> So, I am not so sure government will fund someone who wants to defy/expose a government agenda of more taxation, control, a new energy commodity... with data that shows it ( government / sycophants ) might be stretching the truth a bit. Also, I'm not so sure how many would question the the very thing that pays them/finances them. Science doesn't imply morality.


Science indeed isn't about morality. But you not being sure is your own ignorance and problem, it's not how science works, or even how scientific funding works. Somehow I don't think you hold this same standard to all other parts of scientific funding (if you did, you'd be a consistent science denier), the only alternative is, you have a reason you can tell me you single out this one to scrutinize about funding, and accept scientific conclusions everywhere else. 

To turn it around, do you hold skeptical or denial scientists to the same standard? You either do or don't. I doubt you do, and I think I know why, they're not advocating for carbon taxes. Guess what? Neither are the "pro-warming" scientists.

----------


## PRB

> I guess this is the same reasoning used when we went to war with the "HE GOTS SOME WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!".... 
> Show some data from like minded blood lust killers, supported by "evidence" from "experts" funded by said killers and bingo, you got 
> yourself an air tight case. .... Now, prove it wrong?......


It took less than a year to prove wrong. Didn't it?

----------


## buenijo

I believe the scientific consensus on AGW extends to the general public. The vast majority of people accept that (1) increasing the net concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase temperature (all else equal), and (2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Since 1 and 2 hold, then it's clear our CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are causing global temperatures to be at least marginally higher than they would otherwise (i.e. without the emissions). 

Done! AGW cannot be contested in any material way. The challenge at the start of this thread can only attract whack jobs who might also doubt the Apollo moon landings. In fact, I'll put up $1000 to anyone who can prove either that the greenhouse effect does not exist, or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Perhaps I'll start a thread dedicated to the purpose. PRB, you should contribute as a moderator.

----------


## RickyJ

> I believe the scientific consensus of AGW extends to the general public. The vast majority of people accept that (1) increasing the net concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can increase temperature (all else equal), and (2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Since 1 and 2 hold, then it's clear our CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are causing global temperatures to be at least marginally higher than they would otherwise (i.e. without the emissions). 
> 
> Done! AGW cannot be contested in any material way. *The challenge at the start of this thread can only attract whack jobs who might also doubt the Apollo moon landings.* In fact, I'll put up $1000 to anyone who can prove either that the greenhouse effect does not exist, or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Perhaps I'll start a thread dedicated to the purpose. PRB, you should contribute as a moderator.


Another brain washed person that believes that men actually went to the moon responds. Yes, you learned it in school so it must be true, right? You also learned about the Holocaust in school so that must be right too, you think. Most everything you read in history books is BS! There was not a holocaust of the cult of Judaism followers, nor was their ever any man on the moon. Much like the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie, it never happened. The Pearl Harbor attack was known about days ahead of time by Roosevelt who was actively provoking Japan into attacking us. The hijackers of 9/11 was a lie, there were none! You have believed hook line and sinker lies from the government and you will likely continue to do so because you are defending the indefensible, that CO2 will cause run away global warming. It can't!  It can't because CO2 can only reflect so much in its spectrum as a greenhouse gas. In the past there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere than today and there was no run away global warming then, just as there will be no run away global warming now!

----------


## buenijo

Rickyj, you should consider starting a thread on the (alleged) Apollo moon landings. Perhaps you can offer a $1000 reward to one who can show it to be false. Better yet, educate us. Show us how an alternative is best implied by the uncontested facts.

With respect to AGW, we should stop denying it. The greenhouse effect exists. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Our combustion of fossil fuels increases net concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (all else equal). The evidence and logic suggests strongly that man will cause average global temperatures to increase to levels higher than they would achieve otherwise, and that climate will likely be affected by this process.

----------


## PRB

> I believe the scientific consensus on AGW extends to the general public. The vast majority of people accept that (1) increasing the net concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase temperature (all else equal), and (2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Since 1 and 2 hold, then it's clear our CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are causing global temperatures to be at least marginally higher than they would otherwise (i.e. without the emissions).


Luckily, science doesn't care whether people believe it. So generally I refrain from even mentioning what non-scientists (specifically non-studying scientists) believe.




> Done! AGW cannot be contested in any material way.


Yes. it can.

If you can show that CO2 concentrations either don't increase warming (casting doubt on greenhouse effect)
Or that there's a better and more primary cause, explanation.

Then, AGW is severely challenged. 




> The challenge at the start of this thread can only attract whack jobs who might also doubt the Apollo moon landings. In fact, I'll put up $1000 to anyone who can prove either that the greenhouse effect does not exist, or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.


And you're probably never going to have to pay that $1000. 




> Perhaps I'll start a thread dedicated to the purpose. PRB, you should contribute as a moderator.


LOL. No promises.

----------


## PRB

> Another brain washed person that believes that men actually went to the moon responds.


Ok then

----------


## osan

> Global warming is determined by *HEAT OUTPUT??*


Have you ever studied thermodynamics?  Do you understand how systems work?  Do you know what adiabatic transfer is?  How about entropy and enthalpy?

If you are not in possession of knowledge on these and other concepts, how on earth can you make any of the assertions, save as a parrot in repetition of that which others have made?  The question of AGW is one of the thermodynamics of a large, complex, and possibly net-nonlinear system.  If one cannot model the system linearly; if one does not understand the system sufficiently; if the climatic character of the system over geologic time-scales is not known; if the effects of extra-planetary factors are not known, then how in hell can you claim to know anything of discernible and significant merit applicable to the question at hand?  Here, I mean "anyone" when I use the term "you", and not just you personally.

I don't give a damn how smart one may be or thinks he may be.  Sloshing around in the darkness of _necessary ignorance_ in search of an answer to an impossibly complicated question is not likely to produce a true and precise result except by pure and wild coincidence.  If climatologists think they have enough knowledge to answer the question at hand, they have one hell of a dance before them to prove it.  I've spent a lifetime in the R&D world and one thing I understand well enough to understand how little we humans know, is complex systems. 

Shoot, mere computer programs of a modest complexity cannot be modeled successfully to account for all possible states, and often are not even sufficiently modeled to get them well tested. Thermodynamic systems are precisely state-driven affairs.  Systems of even modest complexity expand into mind-numbing inability to model completely and at times even sufficiently.  Doing so with something as complex as the planetary climate on a world as complex as this... _not so easy_.  I have a friend who worked at NOAA and he is a bona fide genius remnant from Cray Research, and he could tell you stories of the models and the endless problems the developers have with them.  In short, they are STILL unable to predict weather with any reasonable certainty beyond perhaps two to three days, and even those predictions are often wrong as most of us are well familiar.  Hell, just a few days ago they were predicting a week of non-ending thunderstorms for the Charleston area.  Not a drop fell.  Hello there.

Finally, I ignore the rest of your questions because you can do your own research.  Go get an engineering degree or at least take a class in thermo.  It will be painful, but at least you will see that there is in fact basis to remain skeptical on the matter, which is my current position.

One thing I will address: you imply the entire media was in on a conspiracy to fabricate a false account of what happened in East Anglia.  This is the same media which has been otherwise all over and aboard with AGW.  Why, pray tell, would they suddenly go turncoat?  The only answer that makes sense to me is that they had to in order to retain what little credibility remains to them.  The boys at East Anglia got caught with their pants down, plain and simple.  I cannot imagine for a moment that the "media" would have pooched their brothers in politics for any other reason.  But please give us your alternative explanations if you have one.

----------


## PRB

> One thing I will address: you imply the entire media was in on a conspiracy to fabricate a false account of what happened in East Anglia.  This is the same media which has been otherwise all over and aboard with AGW.


No, actually it's not the same media. 




> Why, pray tell, would they suddenly go turncoat?  The only answer that makes sense to me is that they had to in order to retain what little credibility remains to them.  The boys at East Anglia got caught with their pants down, plain and simple.  I cannot imagine for a moment that the "media" would have pooched their brothers in politics for any other reason.  But please give us your alternative explanations if you have one.


Not the same media. Mostly conservative and sensationalist outlets.

----------


## buenijo

> Luckily, science doesn't care whether people believe it. So generally I refrain from even mentioning what non-scientists (specifically non-studying scientists) believe.


I prefer to note that _reality_ doesn't care whether people believe it (scientists included). Either way, I find it fascinating that much of the contention surrounding the AGW issue is largely a matter of perception. There are very few, if any, genuine "climate deniers". Even vocal critics of the IPCC, such as Christopher Monckton, do not deny AGW. 




> And you're probably never going to have to pay that $1000.


Yes, it would be very unlikely. The same goes for the $30,000 prize discussed at the start of this thread. Showing the greenhouse effect to be nonexistent, or demonstrating CO2 to not be a greenhouse gas, would be a daunting task.


Interestingly, it could be that everyone active on this forum are proponents of AGW.

----------


## PRB

> I prefer to note that _reality_ doesn't care whether people believe it (scientists included). Either way, I find it fascinating that much of the contention surrounding the AGW issue is largely a matter of perception. There are very few, if any, genuine "climate deniers". Even vocal critics of the IPCC, such as Christopher Monckton, do not deny AGW. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be very unlikely. The same goes for the $30,000 prize discussed at the start of this thread. Showing the greenhouse effect to be nonexistent, or demonstrating CO2 to not be a greenhouse gas, would be a daunting task.
> 
> 
> Interestingly, it could be that everyone active on this forum are proponents of AGW.


But we think we know where to find deniers and skeptics, surely, somebody wants to be right.

----------


## osan

> Not the same media. Mostly conservative and sensationalist outlets.


Bull$#@!.  This was plastered all over the place.  For $#@!'s sake man, even CNN and MSNBC covered it.

----------


## buenijo

Osan makes a great argument - and I agree. It is folly to believe we have the means to know how our CO2 emissions will affect the climate. However, we do have a compelling argument that (all else equal) it will cause average global temperatures to increase at least marginally, or moderate a cooling trend at least marginally (not necessarily measurably of course - that is, not necessarily in any material way). Still, accepting this is enough to place someone firmly into the AGW camp - at least as I've come to understand their arguments. Of course, the scientists can't seem to agree on how much of the warming can be attributed to our emissions, or how much of any cooling might have been moderated by our emissions. That's not important. What's important is that there exists a _consensus_ among the scientists on the AGW issue.

----------


## buenijo

> But we think we know where to find deniers and skeptics, surely, somebody wants to be right.


I think I've got a handle on the "denier" term. I'm still struggling with the "skeptic" term. PRB, help me out. For example, would Christopher Monckton be considered a "skeptic"?

----------


## PRB

> Bull$#@!.  This was plastered all over the place.  For $#@!'s sake man, even CNN and MSNBC covered it.


What did they actually say about it?

----------


## PRB

> I think I've got a handle on the "denier" term. I'm still struggling with the "skeptic" term. PRB, help me out. For example, would Christopher Monckton be considered a "skeptic"?


If what you say is true, that he accepts AGW, then he is neither a denier nor a skeptic. He's accepting of it. 

People who accept AGW and just don't want policy changes, are not skeptics, they're just political people. 

However, from my personal observation, he seems to be very good at misrepresenting data and studies.

To know if a person is a skeptic or a denier, first, we see what he accepts and identifies himself as.

If he identifies as a skeptic, or a person who does not accept AGW, then we can be either a skeptic or a denier.
If he claims to be skeptical, ask him why. Ask him what will convince him to accept AGW.
He has to either set a reasonable and testable goal, or he's a denier. 
For example, if he says "I must see temperature rise 20 degrees a year or else AGW is false" then he's a denier.
Or if he says "Nothing will convince me", he's definitely a denier. 
A denier is defined by a person's unwillingness to change his mind in light of new evidence, or an outright dishonest denial of available evidence.

----------


## PRB

> Osan makes a great argument -and I agree. It is folly to believe we have the means to know how our CO2 emissions will affect the climate. However, we do have a compelling argument that (all else equal) it will cause average global temperatures to increase at least marginally, or moderate a cooling trend at least marginally (not necessary measurably of course - that is, not necessarily in any material way). Still, accepting this is enough to place someone firmly into the AGW camp - at least as I've come to understand their arguments. Of course, the scientists can't seem to agree on how much of the warming can be attributed to our emissions, or how much of any cooling might have been moderated by our emissions. That's not important. What's important is that there exists a _consensus_ among the scientists on the AGW issue.


Sounds like you understand it. 

It's true that not all scientists are on the same page on predicting future temperatures, but the most accurate predictors have been, as far as I know, the ones who rely on CO2 to make predictions. 

Accepting that AGW is possible, the greenhouse effect is true, and humans have created enough GHG to cause climate disruption, means you are open minded to AGW, regardless of how severe and dramatic you think it will be, this could include both skeptics and accepters, since both would be intellectually honest as long as they follow the data. 

It's when a person has to desperately lie and yell "it's cooling here" or "it's impossible for humans to cause it" "greenhouse effect is a hoax", that will get him labeled as a dishonest denier or skeptic. 

I guess my point here is this, I have no problem with honest skeptics and people who use science, I have a problem with self proclaimed skeptics who are actually dishonest deniers.

----------


## RickyJ

I laugh at people thinking that man's contribution to CO2 in the air is somehow significant compared to past concentrations of CO2 in the air that man had nothing to do with and which did not cause run away global warming. CO2 from man or nature is still CO2, and the fact is that we have much less in our atmosphere now than we have at many other times in history. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have always followed temperature increases rather than causing them. Please stop trying to classify the necessary molecule of CO2 as a "pollutant" when plants need it to survive and thrive.

----------


## RickyJ

One more thing, I want that 30 grand, and plan on collecting it.

----------


## buenijo

> Sounds like you understand it. 
> 
> If what you say is true, that he accepts AGW, then he is neither a denier nor a skeptic. He's accepting of it.


Well then, I suppose I am an AGW proponent (an "accepter" so to speak) as my position seems identical to that of Monckton. He is very clear about his position. He states unequivocally that the GHG emissions by humans is affecting global temperature and climate conditions. He notes, however, that we do not have the means to determine its extent, and he emphasizes in particular that the forecasts of imminent climate catastrophe are not supported by the underlying science. 

Your definitions for "skeptic" and "denier" seem reasonable.

Now, isn't it interesting how, once a discussion emphasizes clarity in the underlying terms, then agreement often follows. Without this clarity, then we may as well be trying to communicate in different languages - in a sense, we would be - or have been as it were.

I now find myself wondering what is the value at all in continuing this discussion. We seem to agree that AGW exists, but that it's impossible to know how it will manifest. We also agree that government should not intervene. It seems most people in this forum take this same position. *Where's the controversy?*

----------


## buenijo

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0411153453.htm

Just my personal comment on the discussion of this study (see link). The use of what is called ""multi-proxy climate reconstructions" to determine temperatures in the past raises a red flag as far as I'm concerned. Proxies are by definition removed from the source, and this necessarily introduces error. This error would be compounded with other factors including weighting, which must be done even though it was not discussed. Weighting introduces a subjective factor that is influenced by bias (a quality possessed by all). Again, I do not doubt AGW. I am merely skeptical that this study has measured it. The use of proxies in lieu of direct temperature measurements, and weighting, reminds me of how the infamous "hockey stick" graph was generated. I'm convinced that study was wholly flawed, yet it was instrumental in steering the science (and politics) for a long time. Let us all take care to not fool ourselves.

----------


## fletcher

Here's one response to this idiotic 'contest':




> About that $30,000 to disprove global warming contest
> Posted on July 6, 2014	by Guest Blogger
> 
> Guest essay by Steven Burnett
> 
> Most of my income is derived from tutoring, with part being tied into the Google helpouts system. One of my most loyal customers for my physics and mathematics tutoring sent me a link to a $10,000 reward challenge for skeptics. Which is now up to $30,000, seen here.
> 
> Below is what I wrote back with minor edits. While I could have added more links, or graphs, I feel that this synopsis is the most compact skeptics case, without dropping off too many details. Perhaps I should submit it for $30,000.
> 
> ...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/0...rming-contest/

----------


## buenijo

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.U7tEoWGQFPF

This one is better than the other, but still not impressive by itself. Consider the statements: 

(1) "The prediction... comes from one of several models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to predict the outcomes of different warming scenarios." I immediately wonder how many models are used, and how many different scenarios? Playing devil's advocate, a hard core skeptic could scoff while suggesting there may be any number of predictions made using different scenarios and models with only the more successful result later selected. The claim here needs to leave nothing open to this kind of attack as it deflates its significance. 

(2) "The forecast predicted that the world would warm by 0.25 °C between the decade to 1996 and the decade to 2012. This was exactly what happened." My contention expressed in (1) extends here. I wonder how the "several models" and "scenarios" might have played into harvesting, compiling, and possibly weighting the temperature data and final results. Was the temperature of the "world" determined during both periods using the exact same methodology? Again, not specifying leaves open an attack from the skeptics. The devil's advocate can say that temperature data points taken during the second period could have been cherry picked and/or weighted differently to achieve a predetermined figure. We need to be assured that a constant methodology was used, and that all the data points for both periods were taken from the same sources. Perhaps this is explained in the study, but it should be specified in this discussion.

(3) "... global temperatures were following the "lower ranges" of most model forecasts,..." This statement reinforces my concern expressed in (1). Namely, that multiple forecasts are provided. The skeptic could object saying if the science is settled, then it seems there should be only one forecast. Of course, the model could be modified with time, but throwing out multiple forecasts looks suspicious to any skeptic. 

(4) "But sceptics claimed that it was wrong because it failed to predict the recent slowdown in the rate of warming." This seems a legitimate objection. However, I would be impressed with the results if my concerns expressed in (1)-(3) were addressed and applied. Still, a model should be found to work consistently under all conditions, and it will take a lot of time to develop and test such a model - assuming it's possible at all. In my opinion, there has not nearly been sufficient time and testing to develop such a model.

----------


## PRB

> Well then, I suppose I am an AGW proponent (an "accepter" so to speak) as my position seems identical to that of Monckton. He is very clear about his position. He states unequivocally that the GHG emissions by humans is affecting global temperature and climate conditions. He notes, however, that we do not have the means to determine its extent, and he emphasizes in particular that the forecasts of imminent climate catastrophe are not supported by the underlying science.


So is his position basically ,that he accepts AGW, but he is skeptical of future predictions? 




> Your definitions for "skeptic" and "denier" seem reasonable.


I believe they're the same used for Holocaust, AIDS, evolution, 9/11. I probably first got my definition from watching Penn & Teller "A skeptic demands to be convinced, with evidence" as opposed to a person who's decided he's right and "nothing will convince me". 




> Now, isn't it interesting how, once a discussion emphasizes clarity in the underlying terms, then agreement often follows. Without this clarity, then we may as well be trying to communicate in different languages - in a sense, we would be - or have been as it were.


Couldn't say it better myself. Which is why I almost always try to ask if a person's 
1) not accepting that global warming is true
2) not accepting that greenhouse effect is true
3) not accepting that global warming is man caused
4) accepting of all of the above, just don't like policy changes
And then I ask why. It's quite annoying when a person first says global warming isn't true, then says it's true but it's natural. Or says greenhouse effect is false, but then tell you water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.




> I now find myself wondering what is the value at all in continuing this discussion. We seem to agree that AGW exists, but that it's impossible to know how it will manifest. We also agree that government should not intervene. It seems most people in this forum take this same position. *Where's the controversy?*


Between the 2 of us? Not much disagreement, so not much discussion needed for now.

----------


## PRB

> One more thing, I want that 30 grand, and plan on collecting it.


Let me know when you've made a submission, I look forward to him paying, and/or you yelling he cheated.

----------


## PRB

> I laugh at people thinking that man's contribution to CO2 in the air is somehow significant compared to past concentrations of CO2 in the air that man had nothing to do with and which did not cause run away global warming.


PLEASE tell me you have something other than this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-...Ordovician.htm




> CO2 from man or nature is still CO2, and the fact is that we have much less in our atmosphere now than we have at many other times in history.


From perspective of chemistry and climate, yes, they are the same molecule, although there are isotrophic differences that tell us which is which.




> CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have always followed temperature increases rather than causing them. Please stop trying to classify the necessary molecule of CO2 as a "pollutant" when plants need it to survive and thrive.


I'm not calling it a pollutant, but the lagging argument is answered here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...termediate.htm

If the lagging argument was as true as you want it to be, greenhouse effect would be false.

----------


## PRB

> Just my personal comment on the discussion of this study (see link). The use of what is called ""multi-proxy climate reconstructions" to determine temperatures in the past raises a red flag as far as I'm concerned.


you have only 2 ways of measuring temperature, by direct instrumental measurement, or proxy. No matter how many proxies you use, it's still proxy.

So, if you don't want to trust proxies, that's fine, just don't turn around and tell me "there was an ice age, it was warmer in year 1000" which is exactly what deniers and fake skeptics do. I'm OK with a person saying he just only wants to believe what is measured and recorded, I'm not OK with people hypocritically only using proxy temperatures when it favors their argument.

----------


## PRB

> (4) "But sceptics claimed that it was wrong because it failed to predict the recent slowdown in the rate of warming." This seems a legitimate objection. However, I would be impressed with the results if my concerns expressed in (1)-(3) were addressed and applied. Still, a model should be found to work consistently under all conditions, and it will take a lot of time to develop and test such a model - assuming it's possible at all. In my opinion, there has not nearly been sufficient time and testing to develop such a model.


I agree, it's a legitimate point. So then we ask.

*WHO DID PREDICT THE RECENT SLOWDOWN? Did deniers? Could they tell us why back then?
*
You won't hear me disagree if you're just telling us models are not perfect or fail to predict everything, what you WILL hear me say, is that they're the best we have as long as they've honestly followed the best evidence available. 

Something we just haven't seen people who are 'skeptical' do. So there again is my challenge, are skeptics and deniers willing to make predictions and put them to the test? Would they be willing to be called LIARS, ALARMISTS, AGENDA DRIVEN if they are anything but perfect? 

I don't expect YOU to personally grasp the 'extent' of which humans influence climate. But if models and predictions are vindicated, isn't it a good indication that we have SOME idea of the extent? I mean, if we expected the extent to be greater or less, wouldn't we have a different prediction?

----------


## buenijo

> *WHO DID PREDICT THE RECENT SLOWDOWN? Did deniers? Could they tell us why back then?
> *


During the research I did about 7 years back I noted several prominent scientists predicting a cooling trend. Many of these scientists were solar physicists who expected a waning solar activity to lead to cooling or a slowing of the warming trend. I cannot recall the researchers after so much time, but they were there as considering their claims influenced my thinking at the time. There is one researcher whose work I happen to recall as he stood out for his credentials as a climate specialist (and his last name is easy to remember). 

Here is a Wikipedia link that gives a bio on this scientist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...global_warming . Note in particular the section entitled "Stance on Global Warming". Interestingly, the description of his position reads as if he is a climate denier or skeptic. Certainly it seems he is not popular with the mainstream community of climate scientists. However, by the definitions we have established during the course of this discussion, he must be an "accepter" as he maintains the AGW position. He makes this clear by his statement "humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight." Also interesting is Dr. Gray's authority in hurricanes. He predicted that there would be a marked increase in hurricane activity associated with the start of the cooling (or "slowdown") trend.

NOTE: Wikipedia is not generally a reliable source, so his work should be referenced elsewhere.

Dr. Gray's position on climate modeling: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/1...te-prediction/

----------


## buenijo

> you have only 2 ways of measuring temperature, by direct instrumental measurement, or proxy. No matter how many proxies you use, it's still proxy.
> 
> So, if you don't want to trust proxies, that's fine, just don't turn around and tell me "there was an ice age, it was warmer in year 1000" which is exactly what deniers and fake skeptics do. I'm OK with a person saying he just only wants to believe what is measured and recorded, I'm not OK with people hypocritically only using proxy temperatures when it favors their argument.


Not sure what you mean to impart with the statement "No matter how many proxies you use, it's still a proxy." The point I am making is that anything that deviates from a direct measurement will introduce errors. Throw in weighting with its (necessarily) subjective qualities, and errors can compound quickly. I see good reason to approach such work with apprehension.

Question: Wasn't it warmer in the year 1000? Isn't this year included in the Medieval Warm Period? So far I've seen no reason to doubt that this period showed higher average global temperatures than today. This cannot make me a denier or skeptic by the definitions we have established. After all, I accept the argument that GHG derived from industry have contributed to global warming or mitigated cooling trends.

----------


## buenijo

> So is his position basically ,that he accepts AGW, but he is skeptical of future predictions?


Yes, that's pretty much the position we take (both he and I). For clarity, note the we take the position that, because the science is so young and incomplete, we have insufficient knowledge and understanding to make accurate predictions. In other words, there is no reason for alarm and certainly no reason for government intervention on the matter such as is often insisted by others (I'll call them the "alarmists"). Those who believe major climate disruptions will be caused by AGW are being influenced in some degree by subjective considerations. After all, if the science were complete, then there would not exist so wide a variance in the positions taken by scientists. 

Again, I suspect strongly that just about everyone active on this forum takes the same position on AGW as both Monckton and myself. Also, from what I've seen, this same position is taken by most scientists. I suspect that everyone active in even this thread accepts AGW by the definitions we established earlier. I suspect they also agree with Monckton on the issue.

----------


## newbitech

anyone who follows the tropics and weather modelling during hurricane season can tell you that hurricane models predictions extending out past 5 days are worthless.  I am not sure how anyone would have any confidence in global  models that extend for decades!  LOL!

----------


## buenijo

repost

----------


## PRB

> Question: Wasn't it warmer in the year 1000?


Only if you trust proxies




> Isn't this year included in the Medieval Warm Period?


We were not there and we didn't have thermometers, so only if you trust proxies.




> So far I've seen no reason to doubt that this period showed higher average global temperatures than today. This cannot make me a denier or skeptic by the definitions we have established. After all, I accept the argument that GHG derived from industry have contributed to global warming or mitigated cooling trends.


We've established you're not a denier, so that's not the question here. 

I just said, it's fine if somebody was complaining that proxies can't be trusted, as long as the same person doesn't tell us in the next sentence that the past (pre-instrumental) was either hotter or colder to fit his own argument.

----------


## PRB

> anyone who follows the tropics and weather modelling during hurricane season can tell you that hurricane models predictions extending out past 5 days are worthless.  I am not sure how anyone would have any confidence in global  models that extend for decades!  LOL!


Yes, because weather and climate are not the same thing.

----------


## PRB

> Again, I suspect strongly that just about everyone active on this forum takes the same position on AGW as both Monckton and myself.


If you asked enough questions, maybe. But from my gathering, they always start with

It's not warming!
It's warming, but it's the sun!
It's warming, it's not the sun, but it's natural!
It's warming, it's not natural, but it's not stoppable!!!
It's warming, it's not natural, it's stoppable, but not by taxing!
I don't care anymore, I just don't want to pay new taxes! 

My favorite shortcut to see if a person's genuinely interested in scientific debate, or simply political, is to ask 
"What if you were guaranteed that there would be no carbon emissions regulations or taxes? Would you care which way temperature was going?"

You can ask alarmists and warmists and anybody you think is politically motivated the same question
"What if you were guaranteed that you can collect an emissions tax regardless of what temperature we get, would you waste time arguing which way temperature is going?"

Similarly, ask
"What if CO2 caused global cooling and the government wanted to tax to stop cooling, would you still be pulling all this data about global cooling out for us? Or would you start arguing global cooling isn't happening?"

Another variation
"What if you were guaranteed the government WILL tax carbon emissions with no basis or justification whatsoever, would you waste a minute telling us what carbon emissions do for better or worse?"

----------


## buenijo

> Only if you trust proxies. We were not there and we didn't have thermometers, so only if you trust proxies.
> 
> ... it's fine if somebody was complaining that proxies can't be trusted, as long as the same person doesn't tell us in the next sentence that the past (pre-instrumental) was either hotter or colder to fit his own argument.


Well, of course one must consider the best data available if any study is to proceed. Since direct temperature measurements going back beyond a few hundred years are not available, then temperature proxies are required. This should go without saying. However, _in any case_, the use of such proxies introduces error and a resulting ambiguity cannot be avoided. Unfortunately, _this reinforces that tendency we all have to see what we want to see_ (the tendency to fool ourselves, as Feynman noted). So far, with respect to the so-called "Medieval Warm Period", the data and historical accounts I've seen have me convinced that average global temperatures during that period were higher than today. Interestingly, this was never questioned until very recently. I can be convinced otherwise, but I'll need evidence that is powerful and unambiguous. _Fortunately, the global temperatures during that time have no bearing on the veracity of AGW._

----------


## PRB

> Well, of course one must consider the best data available if any study is to proceed. Since direct temperature measurements going back beyond a few hundred years are not available, then temperature proxies are required. This should go without saying. However, _in any case_, the use of such proxies introduce error and a resulting ambiguity cannot be avoided. Unfortunately, _this reinforces that tendency we all have to see what we want to see_ (the tendency to fool ourselves, as Feynman noted). So far, with respect to the so-called "Medieval Warm Period", the data and historical accounts I've seen have me convinced that average global temperatures during that period were higher than today. Interestingly, this was never questioned until very recently. I can be convinced otherwise, but I'll need evidence that is powerful and unambiguous. _Fortunately, the global temperatures during that time have no bearing on the veracity of AGW._


Sounds like you have some idea of the arguments, so I'll elaborate on my other pet peeves. 

When people say "it was hotter in the MWP", they are usually assuming temperature is the only concern. Sure, temperature alone IS a concern if it's high enough, you can have long droughts, iceless arctics and high sea levels, but even that is easy to adjust if it were either predictable or the end of all concerns. 

The other concerns are, what if you can't predict or can't prepare for sudden droughts vs floods. You may simply move away from the area and start growing your crops elsewhere if you had a 2 year warning, and believed the next 10 years will be predictable. What if you had one drought every 3 years, a flood in between? That could mean your crops grow some years and not others, worse yet, maybe not at all. 

Too scary? How about 2 droughts every 10 years, 2 hurricanes every 10 years? Just think about how many people will have to move, be forced to move, how many houses will be forced to be rebuilt, how many jobs will be created just to repair damages, how many more emergency relief personel will be employed just within a 10 year period. Would that be better or worse for the government than simply taxing? Or preparing?

So while it's correct that past temperatures don't change the fact that AGW is well supported, the more important point is that, our modern lifestyle is increasingly fragile, demanding, while population is increasing.

This is a lot like saying, if there were a war or plague in modern day, killing millions of people in a country over 60 years old. A person responds with "Well, didn't you know people 500 years ago almost never live past 60? They had it worse! What are you complaining about!?" If we were willing to live the lifestyle of Medieval ages, this would not be a debate, at all.

But people aren't even willing to pay 10% of their income or another new carbon tax, which would still make them many times richer than anybody 200, 500 or 1000 years ago, so the comparison is just not sincere.

----------


## buenijo

> So while it's correct that past temperatures don't change the fact that AGW is well supported, the more important point is that, our modern lifestyle is increasingly fragile, demanding, while population is increasing.


I agree that our modern lifestyle is increasingly fragile. Still, I consider the dangers perceived by many AGW proponents as a low priority. I take this position partly because I have seen no credible evidence that severe climate disruptions have been or will be caused by AGW. Also important, I cannot see how the effects of AGW can be mitigated. It's impossible to know how climate will be disrupted by AGW. One can always claim a certain series of severe storms or droughts to be "proof" of AWG. Well, I think this would reflect a certain hubris. More important, it would not be useful. What can we do but roll with the punches (natural or otherwise)?

----------


## PRB

> One can always claim a certain series of severe storms or droughts to be "proof" of AWG. Well, I think this would reflect a certain hubris. More important, it would not be useful. What can we do but roll with the punches (natural or otherwise)?


Exactly that, roll with the punches, adapt and prepare. Which you can't do when you're denying it's happening or stuck on arguing whether it's natural or man made.

Nobody claims earthquakes are man made, but boy, if we can predict one, image how we'd act. Would anybody here be arguing whether an earthquake tax will save our homes? Or whether building codes should take such events into account?

----------


## buenijo

PRB, I thank you for the civil discourse. Please consider describing your position on AGW in the thread I recently started: 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Climate-Change

----------


## newbitech

> Yes, because weather and climate are not the same thing.


Right, from NOAA...  http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/weather_climate.html




> Think about it this way: Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.


As I said, weather models that focus on a climatological event such as hurricane season are useless after 5 days.  These aren't global models, they are localized models that specifically target this event and are fed real time data such as buoy info, dropsondes from hurricane hunters, satellite imagery etc etc..  

I am not sure how any GLOBAL model would do any better of a job at predicting what the weather is going to be 1 year from now, much less 20 or 50.. 

Here is a direct comparison.  Check the source, but it seems like good info. 

http://nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/page_2_2.php




> Weather vs. Climate Models
> 
> A model climate or earth system model is very similar to a weather forecast model, but with many added physical processes (such as ocean circulations, sea and glacial ice, vegetation and soil wetness, human emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants) to better simulate long-term climate variability and change. The climate model naturally simulates realistic storms and weather, whose statistics are used to answer climate questions.
> 
> 
> The individual storms simulated by a climate model are not expected to be exactly the same as those that really occur, but they should have the same typical characteristics. Thus, asking climate questions take the information from weather models to look at averages. On average, how often does it rain in DC? And how much? In what months does it rain the most? Will it rain more often next year? What about ten years from now? Or 50 years from now?
> 
> 
> For short-term climate predictions over periods of a few weeks to a few years, such as seasonal and El Nino forecasts, the model is started from our best guess at the current state of the ocean, ice, land and atmosphere. The ocean, especially, reacts rather slowly and allows such forecasts to have skill much longer than a weather forecast. For climate projections over periods of decades to centuries and longer, the model is started from a statistical mean state and spontaneously develops its own weather and climate.



I would say based on human's extremely limited ability to model short term weather patterns, the probability of developing a global weather model that can give any sort of confidence in predicting what the weather patterns will be like in 20-50 years is close to nil.  

We just haven't got enough data points to input and we barely understand how all of the environmental factors that we do know about work together.  

Take for instance the complete lack of ability to predict a storms intensity.  We can't even begin to estimate probable damage estimates without knowing which part of the storm is going to be severe.  Will it be the wind?  The storm surge?  The torrential rains?  What happens with topigraphical land interaction?  So many questions we just can't answer even when the event is only days away.  

Pretending like those things can be predicted YEARS in the future based soley on 1 data point such as a co2 emissions is completely irresponsible science at best, and just flat out willful ignorance at worst.  

We should be more concerned about what gets passed off as science and how that IS destroying humanity today than whether or not industrialization of the 3rd world is going to melt the ice caps 10 years from now.

----------


## PRB

> We should be more concerned about what gets passed off as science and how that IS destroying humanity today


I'm listening

----------


## newbitech

> I'm listening


for instance, the religious dogma that gravity is the center of the universe.

Some source material.  We might start another thread on this topic, but generally, the question of "scientifically" disproving something should come with a general understanding of what science actually is and isn't.  And further more, any "scientific assumption" that can be disproved by simple observation should be rejected without any further discussion.  

http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/11/28/...come-dogmatic/




> The problem is especially apparent in physics, argues Sheldrake, suggesting that the laws of nature may not be fixed, regardless of widely held belief. He explains that scientists across the globe consistently get different measurements for the gravitational force or the speed of light. Despite this, they maintain that their variation is due to experimental error, and not an actual change in these so-called constants. ‘But what if the laws of nature vary throughout the day’ Sheldrake suggests, urging scientists to analyse evidence instead of just accepting widely held ‘dogmas.’ Sheldrake goes further, explaining how physics, in order to justify these figures, ‘makes up’ certain proportions of dark energy and matter* to ensure that the calculations fit in with proposed models.*


hmm sounds familiar....

this is what concerns me.  from the same link




> This allegedly leads to what Sheldrake describes as an ‘innovation deficit;’ a situation where scientific discoveries have slowed down because we have limited our research efforts because of such dogmas.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> for instance, the religious dogma that gravity is the center of the universe.
> 
> Some source material.  We might start another thread on this topic, but generally, the question of "scientifically" disproving something should come with a general understanding of what science actually is and isn't.  And further more, any "scientific assumption" that can be disproved by simple observation should be rejected without any further discussion.  
> 
> http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/11/28/...come-dogmatic/
> 
> 
> 
> hmm sounds familiar....
> ...


Part of the issue with public schools. Everyone starts to think within a preconceived box.

There was a link posted here on the octave law of chemistry being not as demanding as once was thought.

Interesting stuff.

----------


## newbitech

more issues with modelling, bad science, etc...  recent news about solar studies.  good stuff

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...nd-space-news/

*Confirmed: Magnetic Waves Cannot Accelerate Solar Wind

*and some other good stuff from years ago. 

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/global...-of-ignorance/

*Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance

*


> Since the late 1970s, three Sun-watching satellites recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind. Dr. Sami Solanski, director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, said, _“The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.” “The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was….”_ Dr. Solanski admitted to not knowing what is causing the Sun to burn brighter. A leading authority, Eugene N. Parker, adds, _“…we really do not properly understand the physics of the varying luminosity of the Sun.”_This highlights the fundamental problem with the global warming verdict from climate experts. It is based on profound ignorance about how the Sun really “ticks” and what forms of energy are input to a planet’s climate. For this they can blame astrophysicists.






> The electromotive power is deposited mostly in the upper atmosphere at mid to low latitudes and gives rise to fast upper atmosphere winds and even “super rotation.” That is, the wind races around the planet faster than the planet turns. It is a phenomenon observed on Venus and Titan and remains unexplained by atmospheric physics, which relies on solar heating. It is the cause of the extraordinary winds on the gas giant planets in the outer solar system, where solar heating is weak. It has implications for the jet streams and weather patterns on Earth as well. Notably, the polar current streams take the form of twin Birkeland current filaments, which give rise to the enigmatic “double vortexes” seen at the poles of Venus. *It is apparent that electrical energy from space doesn’t merely light up auroras. It has a profound influence on upper atmosphere winds and* *storms**.* An expert on the dynamics of planetary atmospheres, F. W. Taylor, has admitted, _“the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case [Venusian polar vortex] any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations.”_* Meanwhile, electrical energy appears nowhere in any climate model.*



finally, this

----------


## newbitech

oh this is good

----------


## buenijo

Yep, the more one digs into the actual science, then the more one appreciates how nonsensical and fantastic are the alarmist claims of the carbon zealots.

----------

