As
this contest is a logical fallacy as science does not prove or
disprove, it merely a collection of data that is analyzed and
interpreted, but I need $10,000. And if a Physicist is dumb enough to
put up his own money then I have enough resources to allot 13 minutes
for an investment.
All global models that predict man made CO2
as the major contributing factor of global warming effects on a
reduction of Arctic sea ice has not trended in with the projections for
the last 15 years even though CO2 has slowly increased over that time.
Logically the planet can't be warming if there is less latent heat
energy to keep water in liquid form, unless there is new evident that
the rate of radiation that the earth emits has lessened or the earth has
added a significant amount of surface area.
This is evidence
establishes a "impossibility" has occurred, outside the given
expectations of 100,000s of Computer simulated hours and based on the
most popular global fluid dynamics, and yet it has happened. Given
global climate models are shown to be flawed, and in some cases
fraudulently produced with meeting expectations as a goal of the
programing, and thus the basis of "man made global warming" is flawed by
all accounts of standard modeling projection analyses.
If an
engineer changes his building program to meet their ideal
characteristics, and the subject fails, like a building or a bridge,
typically an investigation will recriminate him for using faulty
models. Why aren't "climatologist" held to the same standard?
You start off right away with a false statement. You say this challenge "is a logical fallacy as science does not prove or
disprove, it merely a collection of data that is analyzed and
interpreted". You have clearly not paid any attention to what the challenge is about. Deniers make the claim that man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. I am providing you a venue to do so. There is most certainly not any logical fallacy in that challenge. Your claim is just a lame attempt by deniers to avoid the issue.
You say Arctic sea ice has not trended down for the last 15 years. Here are plots showing the sea ice extent for the months of September (minimum) and March (maximum):
Both of these plots show the sea ice extent has been decreasing not only for the last 15 years, but since before 1980. So, your first point has been shown to be incorrect.
Next, your claim about computer models. This has become the favorite false argument deniers are making, and it is false for two reasons. First, climate change is not about models. Models are a tool we use, but so are many other things such as thermometers, satellites, ice cores, mud cores, tree rings, buoys, radar, etc. Climate change is about studying and understanding the real world events that are occurring as we speak. These real world events are not waiting for a computer model to tell them what to do. The second way this is a false argument is that models are much more accurate than deniers want people to believe. Here and here are just two examples of reports on this subject. There are many more if you will do your homework.
So, your second point is also incorrect.
So, your complete submission consists of the claim that Arctic sea ice is not decreasing and claims models are not living up to someone's demands. I have shown how both of those arguments are not valid.
You have not shown man made global warming is not happening.
All global models that predict man made CO2 as the major contributing factor of global warming effects on a reduction of Arctic sea ice has not trended in with the projections for the last 15 years even though CO2 has slowly increased over that time. Logically the planet can't be warming if there is less latent heat energy to keep water in liquid form, unless there is new evident that the rate of radiation that the earth emits has lessened or the earth has added a significant amount of surface area.
This is evidence establishes a "impossibility" has occurred, outside the given expectations of 100,000s of Computer simulated hours and based on the most popular global fluid dynamics, and yet it has happened. Given global climate models are shown to be flawed, and in some cases fraudulently produced with meeting expectations as a goal of the programing, and thus the basis of "man made global warming" is flawed by all accounts of standard modeling projection analyses.
If an engineer changes his building program to meet their ideal characteristics, and the subject fails, like a building or a bridge, typically an investigation will recriminate him for using faulty models. Why aren't "climatologist" held to the same standard?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/30/imagine-45-days-after-predicted-irreversible-collapse-antarctic-sea-ice-?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=Antarctic-Ice
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/30/imagine-45-days-after-predicted-irreversible-collapse-antarctic-sea-ice-?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=Antarctic-Ice
Response:
You start off right away with a false statement. You say this challenge "is a logical fallacy as science does not prove or disprove, it merely a collection of data that is analyzed and interpreted". You have clearly not paid any attention to what the challenge is about. Deniers make the claim that man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. I am providing you a venue to do so. There is most certainly not any logical fallacy in that challenge. Your claim is just a lame attempt by deniers to avoid the issue.
You say Arctic sea ice has not trended down for the last 15 years. Here are plots showing the sea ice extent for the months of September (minimum) and March (maximum):
Both of these plots show the sea ice extent has been decreasing not only for the last 15 years, but since before 1980. So, your first point has been shown to be incorrect.
Next, your claim about computer models. This has become the favorite false argument deniers are making, and it is false for two reasons. First, climate change is not about models. Models are a tool we use, but so are many other things such as thermometers, satellites, ice cores, mud cores, tree rings, buoys, radar, etc. Climate change is about studying and understanding the real world events that are occurring as we speak. These real world events are not waiting for a computer model to tell them what to do. The second way this is a false argument is that models are much more accurate than deniers want people to believe. Here and here are just two examples of reports on this subject. There are many more if you will do your homework.
So, your second point is also incorrect.
So, your complete submission consists of the claim that Arctic sea ice is not decreasing and claims models are not living up to someone's demands. I have shown how both of those arguments are not valid.
You have not shown man made global warming is not happening.