The comment section on this page has filled up. I moved some comments to an archive page (they were not deleted) to make room for comments that already been submitted to this page and were not showing up. Here is the archive page. If you submitted comments here and they are not showing up, try the archive.
New comments can be submitted to the Challenge IV page.
This page is a continuation of the first and second Challenge page. I made this to allow for new comments so they will show up. Please use this page until I fix the original page.
Sorry for the trouble
NEW: There is now a challenge deadline of midnight (CDT) July 31, 2014 for the challenge. All submissions will be posted with my response no later than the end of the day September 30, 2014.
UPDATE: I AM TRYING TO GET TO EVERY SUBMISSION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE RESPONDED (AS OF 7/2) TO 13 SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS (PLUS SOME GENERAL POSTINGS ADDRESSING FREQUENTLY MADE CLAIMS) AND CURRENTLY HAVE 26 QUEUED UP. THE QUICK ONES TYPICALLY DON'T TAKE LONG TO RESPOND TO. THE MORE INVOLVED ONES CAN TAKE A FULL DAY. PLEASE BE PATIENT AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO RESPOND TO ALL GENUINE SUBMISSIONS. IF I MISS YOURS I WILL BE GLAD TO CORRECT MY ERROR.
I APOLOGIZE IF I DON'T REPLY TO EVERY COMMENT. I HAVE RECEIVED OVER 1000 COMMENTS IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS. THERE JUST ISN'T TIME TO RESPOND TO ALL OF THEM. HOWEVER, I READ THROUGH THE COMMENTS EVERY DAY AND RESPOND TO THE ONES I CAN.
I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES, BUT IT IS WORTH SAYING AGAIN: I AM NOT ASKING ANYONE TO PROVE ME WRONG, OR TO PROVE ANYTHING AT ALL. I AM MERELY PROVIDING A VENUE FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE A CLAIM TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT CLAIM. IF YOU ARE SAYING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL AND YOU CAN PROVE IT, I AM GIVING YOU THE CHANCE. IF YOU ARE NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM, THEN THIS CHALLENGE IS NOT FOR YOU.
I NEVER THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE MAKING A SUBMISSION WOULD ACCEPT MY RESPONSE. IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONVINCE A DENIER TO CHANGE HIS MIND WITH ANY AMOUNT OF SCIENCE, EVIDENCE OR LOGIC. BEFORE I GET INTO A DISCUSSION WITH DENIERS ON CLIMATE CHANGE I LIKE TO ASK THEM ONE QUESTION, "IS THERE ANYTHING I CAN DO OR SAY THAT WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND?" IF THE ANSWER IS, "NO," THEN THERE IS NO NEED TO PROCEED. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANYONE TELL ME, "YES." IT REALLY DOES SAVE ME A LOT OF AGGRAVATION.
THIS CHALLENGE AND MY RESPONSES ARE FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT MADE UP THEIR MINDS YET. I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AND PART OF THAT IS TO SHOW HOW INVALID CLAIMS MADE BY DENIERS ARE.
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 $10,000 of my own money, plus another $20,000 vouched for by The Young Turks, 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;
4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;
5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.
That's it! I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn't you like to have a spare $30,000? After all, the skeptics all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn't even have to be original. If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $30,000 is yours!
This is no joke. If someone can provide a proof that I can't refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a check.
But, I am sure I will never have to because it can't be proven. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise.
This one is already blowing up in his face. Even one of the worst deniers out there, Anthony Watts, is distancing himself from this.ReplyDelete
Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) has been known to do this in the past.
Look, I'm not writing this as someone who does not believe in climate change. I'm writing this more out of concern for the state of science. There are a couple of issues I have with your challenge:ReplyDelete
1. Any serious scientific investigation to disprove the hypothesis of climate change will ultimately cost more than $30,000.00 dollars. Now, there is a deadline and any serious investigation to disprove the hypothesis of climate change will take longer than two months.
2. You specifically ask to use the Scientific Method in disproving the hypothesis. Well, I have a little bit of a problem with this. Now, I don't have a problem with the Scientific Method, which by that you are referring to Popper's conception of the Scientific Method otherwise you run into the problem that there is no agreed upon Scientific Method. Again, I believe in the Scientific Method and if your requesting the Scientific Method then that suggest you agree with the Scientific Method. However, therein lies the problem. Has any Climate Research done so far used the Scientific Method? By that, I write part of disproving the Hypothesis in the Scientific Method is creating an experiment which in turn disproves the Hypothesis with a certain degree of statistical significance. Note, I wrote statistical significance and not statistical evidence. Statistics by it's nature is a tool so it cannot provide evidence it can only reject the Hypothesis within certain significance test under an experiment; the evidence is the experiment not the statistics. Not just in the question of Climate Change, but generally in the Social Sciences the statistics is the evidence. Well, this is not the Scientific Method. The little research I have seen on Climate Change tends to look at data from the past, run some regressive analysis and conclude there is a relationship. Well, that is not the Scientific Method; there is no experiment. If that is all you are requesting i.e. that I find historical data and link climate change to anything other than man made sources I can do that easily but that is not Science and the Scientific Method. Helk, I'm pretty sure I can, without any deceit or statistical trickery, link Climate Change to the Dow Jones. So, what?
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.Delete
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.
Please clarify: "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 (it)." Seems like you are saying the same thing.Delete
No, I'm not saying the same thing. I am not asking anyone to disprove global warming. If you want to deny global warming, that is your right. I just want people to be able to make an informed decision on the matter. When deniers go around making their statements without any supporting evidence, that is not allowing people to make an informed decision. This challenge is for the people that make those kinds of statements to come through and back up their claims. If you are one of the people making those statements, then I'm providing a venue to "put up or shut up." If you are not one of them, then this challenge is not for you. I will be glad to provide scientific evidence to prove man made global warming and I am glad to debunk denier claims. But, if you want to believe global warming is not real, that is your right.Delete
I'm sorry, but I still do not understand the difference in semantics. Please understand, I am not trying to be acrimonious, I truly am interested in a solid, scientific discussion without mud-slinging. I realize this topic brings out a lot of passions on both sides of the topic, but even though I seem to be on the "other side" of the argument, I do not agree with those who are insulting. I think this is an interesting challenge. I am merely trying to understand as fully as I can. So please, what is the difference between disproving man made global warming and proving that it is not real.?Delete
Deniers put forth a claim (a hypothesis in scientific method terminology). I am asking them to prove their hypothesis. The other interpretation (the one deniers are trying to use) is that I am putting forth a claim and insisting it is true unless someone proves otherwise. There is a very significant difference.Delete
3. Now, again, I wrote my concern is not with Climate Change but the general state of Science. To be honest, I have a suspicion that Climate Change exists and it is man made. My concern is that it is antithetical to Science to argue something Scientifically exists because 97% of scientists agree it exists. Sure, that is persuasive but rhetoric isn't Scientific. The overall concern, is the implication that Science moves away from the Scientific Method and nature of evidence to a point where a supposed elite group of individuals get to take up votes on the nature of the Universe and the rest of humanity has to accept it. At that point Science has essentially become a religion or government of sorts. To me that is troubling.ReplyDelete
4. As I indicated, you request the Scientific Method. I completely agree with you. The benefit of creating an experiment to disprove the Hypothesis that Climate Change exists goes beyond proving a point. The beauty of the Scientific Method is that it gives you more than just proving a point. Any experiment done will inevitably conclude not only that Climate Change is man made but because any experiment conducted would require predictive value it can answer bigger questions such as if Climate Change does exist what is the rate of climate change, what are the consequences of Climate Change, what exactly are the causes of Climate Change, how long does the Earth have left if nothing is done...etc...the problem with any Statistics as evidence approach is that it doesn't lead to any overall theory or implication that is usable much like a stop watch in it of itself can say nothing about the laws of motion.
Again, just some things to think about. To request the Scientific Method with so little money and so little time to disprove a hypothesis seems to me to be disingenuous. However, if you mean strictly data mining then provide me a link to climate change data and I can statistically link climate change to just about anything. Just for fun I would even try to link it with population changes in church attendance over time, the conclusion is that Climate Change is as a result of not enough people going to church with the conjecture that it is just an act of God to punish us heathens.
The consensus among climate scientists is real. The state of science today is due to vested interests providing huge amounts of funding with the specific objective to undermine climate science. We have seen this only once before - the tobacco industry used these same tactics and the results were the same. A highly divisive public debate erupted that delayed any action that could be taken to help prevent tobacco-related lung disease.Delete
Regarding funding - I don't know I can agree with your statement of seeing only one other case where the specific objective was to undermine a conflicting point of view/argument. Yes, the tobacco industry did in fact,do as you claim, but I'd add that the powerful alcohol & pharmaceutical industries (specifically Bayer) have done the same. For example, look how Prohibition was overturned (I mean, in the US we have 2 amendments to the Constitution dealing just with alcohol). With pharmaceutical companies, specifically Bayer, they have been found to conduct unethical testing even after informed consent was made law, with the idea of specifically infecting people (outside the US) with disease and of course, Bayer's involvement with the Holocaust - being an affiliate of IG Farben.Delete
It is true that there are cases where it has been done (and is being done) where vested individuals undermine the science. But none has erupted into a public debate like these two examples have.Delete
It's easy to establish consensus on anything, when leadership rules with an iron fist.Delete
Remember Saddam Hussein? He was reelected by 100% consensus; but that wasn't because he was a good leader!
Some 40+ high level, NASA scientists, who disagreed with the global warming consensus were fired from their jobs for speaking out against it.
It's easy to create the illusion of consensus, when you control the purse strings and are willing to "eliminate" those who speak against the consensus.
Global Warming is a political movement, not a scientific consensus.
I see your point about the tobacco issue, but I'd clarify that the "public debate" regarding prohibition was in essence a public debate as well - manifested a bit differently with speakeasies and the rise of mobsters like Capone being the financial powerhouses fighting prohibition. Something to consider - remember Papa Joe Kennedy really was on both sides of the alcohol issue - he made much of his money importing/selling alcohol for many years, yet he was also working in government.Delete
I'd suspect at the highest levels, the powers that be are actually funding both sides of the debate. Is seems ridiculous, but has been going on for at least a couple hundred of years. The Battle of Waterloo was also a famous example - both sides being funded by the House of Rothschild. I wouldn't doubt many of our issues today, including both sides of climate change are also funded by the same source(s).
With regards to Bayer, the US is just as guilty of "dealing both sides." The US liberated many survivors who were brutalized under the Nazi regime, including those business who made profits from slave labor and the concentration/death camps. No one in Europe was immune from the effects the Nazis perpetrated against family,friends, and neighbors. However, while the US was defeating the Nazis, they also saw the advantage of many things the Nazis were doing. This was reflected in the seizing of documents, assets, and people who the US found to be beneficial to their causes. This included such things as the formula for methadone as well as many of German's top scientists/engineers that were waived through immigration to work at such places as the CIA and NASA. Then Germany and most Western European countries were assisted in rebuilding, while decimated countries such as Poland and the Ukraine were handed over to the Soviets to suffer 50 more years of torture (and yes, Roosevelt & Churchill knew what they were doing at Yalta and Tehran delivering these people and countries to the Soviets).
My point in all this is, I would not be at all surprised if someday it came out that some people of the highest eschelon were funding both sides of the climate change question as well as many other hot topics.
There have been many public debates. Prohibition was certainly one and ObamaCare is one going on right now. These were not scientific issues. You did not see this kind of public debate on relativity or quantum mechanics. I don't have to worry about going somewhere in public and getting into a debate about the Higgs Boson. I might include evolution in this category. That is another scientific issue with a great deal of public debate, but the vested interest issue is different. Most religions and churches have no problem with evolution. Opposition is concentrated in some organizations/people that really don't have a vested interest in seeing evolution rejected. Their religion will continue as is with, or without, the theory of evolution being around. They simply object on philosophical grounds.Delete
If I found out there are some that are funding both sides I would feel no surprise at all. After all, some of the major political donors donate to both major parties.
Your statements about Boltzmann were both false and misleading. Boltzmann was highly regarded in his time and he received many awards and accolades. His theories even had widespread support among physicists. It is true there were those that disagreed with him and did so with vigor, but to characterize it as "97%" is inaccurate.Delete
It is true that Boltzmann hung himself during a bout of depression, but I know of no evidence that it was because of the debate over his theories (I will admit it is possible, but I have never heard of any evidence). The fact is, people in depression commit suicide all the time. Even the two references you provided made it clear he had a serious mental disorder. The second one even states right out that it is not known for sure that the debate over his work was the cause of his suicide.
The amount of CO2 coming from volcanoes is insignificant compared to what is produced by man. But, that is irrelevant. The naturally produced CO2 is all absorbed through natural processes. About one-half of man-made CO2 is absorbed, which means (currently) about one-half of our production remains in the atmosphere.
I am again writing as a continuation of my earlier post. My original one was lost in cyberspace so I hope this one "takes."ReplyDelete
After carefully considering the wording of your challenge, I am afraid it is too vague for anyone to answer to your satisfaction as you have not provided clear definitions of "climate change" & "man made". Therefore I believe most people have taken these terms to refer to global warming caused by effects of man made emissions over time. At least this is the understanding I am working under. Still, as I really could use the money and am interested in a good discussion of the topic, I continue with my response.
Employing the "scientific method" as much as possible, I am saying that climate change as such is not a (wholly) man made effect. By using the science of dendrochronology (the study of tree rings), with the understanding that trees provide varying beneficial effects for man & the earth. Trees provide shade, nutrition (for man, animal, insects, etc), protection against erosion, heat, severe rain, and other severe weather. Trees produce oxygen while metabolizing CO2. The wood they provide gives warmth through shelter and fire. They also provide information on growth & weather patterns via their rings. Rings tend to be thicker and further apart from others during "good" growth years, correlating with warm, moist weather. Thinner rings closer to each other reflect colder, drier weather.
As trees are found all over the planet, including those that grow surrounded by water, in Siberia, in the tropics, some living hundreds, even thousand of years, we have a good, reproducible record that is fairly easy to assess, record, and compare. This helps greatly as we can all agree natural weather patterns tend to be cyclic, and this helps to understand those cycles better to predict future ones.
The challenge is not to disprove man made global warming. The challenge is to come through on claims deniers are making that man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. I am merely providing a venue for themDelete
NASA fired a group of high level scientists who questioned the global warming hypothesis. In effect, that was a "decapitation strike" against the deniers. We now have no high level leadership, nor any federal funds with which to conduct experimentation.
To empiracally disprove the global warming hypothesis, with experimental data is far more expensive than any of us can afford, privately; and now that your side has "summarily executed" (as it were) our representatives in NASA, how do you expect us to access the kinds of federal monies needed for such large scale and complex experimentation?
As for the rest of us, who are amateur scientists, don't be so quick to dismiss the amateur scientist. The Wright Brothers were amateurs, and they still beat the scientific establishment in being the the first to demonstrate true human flight.
Do your homework. I cannot find any reference that 49 scientists were fired. I can only find a reference to how 49 scientists sent a letter disputing NASA science on climate change. That is a HUGE difference. You claim a censorship when the reality is that they were allowed to voice their concerns.Delete
I don't dismiss the amateur scientist. I am treating all submissions the same, regardless of who is submitting them.
A read through Hannah Arendt's book, "On the Origins of Totalitarianism" would be very enlightening.Delete
I will reiterate:
No scientist should lose their career because someone thinks that politically it is the most convenient thing to do.
This axiom should apply to all sides of the political debate.
Is that what you are going to stand on? So, if someone is being funded to deliberately mislead people and deliberately undermine other scientists, then we should just continue to let them do that? What if we find out they are deliberately falsifying their data in an effort to deceive the public and politicians? We should just continue to let them do that? Strange how this works because when a valid scientist is caught falsifying data his career is ruined. When a denier is caught doing that then he is allowed to just continue doing the same thing. It is a political decision to discount people that undermine science with lies and deception. Are you saying we should just let them do it? Life is far too complicated to decide things with a single line from one, single book.Delete
Turning to weather reports - those have been recorded in a consistent way since about 1880. As this correlated with the Industrial Revolution occurring in many countries at this time, it is difficult to extrapolate detailed information prior to this due to lack of records. Though there are some time periods for which we know something about the weather, i.e. the Little Ice Age, it is often not enough to make definitive statements about that time period.ReplyDelete
Perhaps, the trends that are being discussed today are not being interpreted correctly. There appears to be a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but it is not a linear, or bell-shaped, nor any shape relationship.Still, there is a concern that the changes observed are strictly man made, due to "greenhouse emissions." Though there many that believe there is a correlation between emissions and climate change, it is not an easy one to grasp or define.
Maybe it's the way people look at the various factors. For example, think about the following: You live next door to a small family - a lovely middle age couple with their young adult daughter. We know the dad's height is 6 feet, mom's height is 5'4". What is the daughter's height? Well, this is nearly impossible to answer. The law of averages would say she should be somewhere in between her parent's height - so about 5'7". However, we don't know her true age (in order to suspect whether or not she is finished growing) or if she has any health problems that could affect her growth/height. Also, is everyone measured in their bare feet, or do the women have 4" heels on? By the same token, we have some measurements dealing with the climate which seem to have a correlation, but comparisons show the relationships are not straightforward and it is extremely difficult to assess all potential contributing factors.
It could be that at least some of what we are observing through these measurements are due to effects of which man is only partly to blame. Again, I will use trees as an example. Over the last 50 years or so, we have seen the detrimental effects man has experienced due to a significant reduction in the number of trees and forests. Keeping in mind all of the beneficial effects I listed above for trees (for which now I will just use the word "protection" to define), reducing their numbers would cause less protection from the elements, leading to even more detriment in a domino effect. Though many trees are removed by man, many are also destroyed in fires started by lightning, swept away by avalanches, ruined by disease, etc. Removal of 1 or 2 trees by whatever means would not be enough to effect a very noticeable change, removal of a critical number of them would allow for damage to viewed in a somewhat domino effect. Hurricanes often remind us of this. Damage is not only done by the winds, but by waterlogging, resulting in water damage with subsequent mold and mildew growth that can result in lots of clean up and restoration, possibly leading to illness due to stress, allergy, infection, etc.
Remembering that trees take in CO2, producing oxygen, perhaps the increased CO2/temperature effects are more from a reduction in tree population (planet wise) than from emissions. Just as the human body will show variations temperature, metabolics, respiration depending on stress, nutritional level, etc in an attempt to heal itself, the earth will show variations against time of whatever is being measured. As the atmosphere acts as a protective covering between the earth and space, it also acts as something of a sieve to minimize effects of those things that enter the atmosphere which could potentially be detrimental - i.e. it filters sunlight and burns up meteors and space debris. It would make sense that certain elements and gases that enter the atmosphere are also put through this sieve and the increased temperatures recorded could just be the earth's attempt to rid itself of these elements/gases. This atmospheric "sieve" would be something like a secondary protection the earth itself has sensing that in the case of CO2 and trees, that once some certain amount of CO2 enters the atmosphere likely due to a reduction in trees for any reason, the excess CO2 will be burned up, allowing the earth to try to balance itself out.ReplyDelete
Granted, my argument by virtue of what I propose would require testing I cannot do, I provide a logical argument for my position. It would help to have some clear definitions to this challenge as well. I notice that you do not use natural climate cycles as a valid argument, but I don't understand why. By the same token, I don't accept that these effects are fully man made as per my points above. I hope you will take all this into consideration for your challenge. I must say I agree with those who state the challenge needs to be better defined, with the help of an impartial 3rd party, especially as it involves a substantial reward. I am hopeful you will be fair in you judgement, as there was a similar challenge a few years back by "junkscience.com" albeit for a $500,000 US reward that was never awarded for a lack of a convincing argument for the 5 responses they said they received. I get that this is to help promote your new book, but please thoughtfully consider other points of view.Thank you.ReplyDelete
This challenge precedes the book by several years. I originally made this challenge in 2009 in response the the JunkScience challenge. I was one of those five submissions. By the way, he never provided any feedback on why no one won. And, also note that he was the sole judge. Did you object to him being the sole judge of his challenge, or is it only my challenge you have problems with?ReplyDelete
It has been shown that the current warming trend is not a natural cycle. That is one claim made by deniers as proof that man made global warming is not real. See my post on the subject;
The planet absorbs CO2 through natural cycles. It absorbs all of the naturally produced gas and about half of what we produce (currently, but our production is going up).
I am not sure you have made a submission here. I do not see an argument following the scientific method. If you wish to write it up as a scientific argument I would be glad to accept it.
Unfortunately, your link didn't work re: natural cycles.ReplyDelete
I am restating my submission here per the scientific method.
Question: Does man made climate change exist?
Hypothesis: Man made climate change as such does not exist as an entity unto itself.Please see my entire argument above.
Experiment: I propose to choose one type of tree to conduct the experiment. I suggest to use very large clear glass jars that have a thermometer and CO2 analyzer within the jar. Choose a young small sapling that would fit the jar by having the jar placed over the sapling with the smaller, top part turned upside down to bury the top 1/3 part of the jar. This will allow for the sapling to grow and to be watered, albeit not within the jar system but around it. Take temperature and CO2 measurements at the same time each day for 30-60 days. Repeat at the same time with a piece of dead wood just laying on the ground (from the same type of tree), and with a jar placed in the ground without any tree. Also include a set of jars the same way, but with a piece of partially burned coal within each jar to mimic the greenhouse gases.Ideally, there should be a similar amount of soil and no other vegetation growing within the jar. All ground areas should get just as much water as the sapling. After 30-60 days, graph the measurements to see if the trends.
Results: (note: as I am disabled, I cannot conduct these experiments in the way they need to be conducted, however I have put alot of thought into it and expect to see differences. It would be ideal to repeat the set of experiments using first no water around the jars, then nearly soaking the area around the jars, thereby increasing the power of the experiment).
Conclusion: As I cannot perform the experiments myself, I cannot equivocally give a conclusion. Taking into account my lengthy argument above, I expect to see similar CO2 & temp (relative to the others) in the jars with the coal and the empty jar Next highest temps would be the dead wood, with the least amount of CO2 in the jar with the sapling. Though I am not sure what to expect with the set of jars set in waterlogged areas vs dry, I'd expect higher CO2 & temp levels in the dry set than the waterlogged set, with the average water set somewhere in between. What will be interesting is to see if the differences are statistically significant.
So please consider this my submission, together with my several paragraphs above.
You're right about the link not working. Try this one:Delete
If that won't work, just go to my list of postings.
I will accept your submission and will post it with my response as quickly as I can. There are over 25 submissions ahead of you, so please be patient. It will be called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Glass Jar Experiment." Watch for it.
Dr Keating - I'm afraid the link again doesn't work. Can you guestimate where along the blog the statement is. I'm interested in reading it.Delete
I just realized I forgot to add a few things to my experiment above (sorry, I get fatigued quite easily, so I thought I put these in, but rereading my statements, I realized I didn't). Anyway, for all the jars, the amount of sunlight and outside temperatures should be the same. Also, I realized I didn't clearly add a "man-made" component to my jar set. I'd propose a set of jars/tree/wood/without in which the soil is enriched with the same man-made fertilizer, whereas the other jar sets should be produced in man-made fertilizer free soil (can use other "natural fertizilers" such as mulch for nutrients other than water).
It would be interesting as well to see differences depending on fertilizer.
The link worked just fine when I tried it. Highlight it and right click (or cut and paste it). If that doesn't work, it is called "Naturally Occurring Cycles Are Not Responsible For Today's Warming."Delete
Thank you sir for the reply to my previous comment. I would like to reiterate I am not climate change skeptic, I do suspect there is something man made going on. However, I am critical of your method in this challenge.ReplyDelete
To be honest, if I had $30,000.00 and the interest in Climate Change my approach would be to use that money to create a web-site where all the peer reviewed articles on Climate Change were freely provided. Something like a Climate Change JSTOR. I would also include on that web-site all the data that currently exists regarding the matter for those inclined to replicate the findings for themselves. The nature of the web means you just wouldn't get only Americans chiming in, if successful, people all over the world could chime in. The ultimate point would be for people to see for themselves first hand the evidence and the veracity of the evidence.
If you wanted to add monetary compensation to disprove man made climate change then you could link that site to some sort of kick-start web page where the general public could put money down for anyone who can do it. Then get the media involved to publicize it and I'm sure you would get real money down to disprove it. If after so many attempts it can't be disproved, well then it seems the matter it is settled.
To me this would serve the interest of science better, get people more aware and more involved, and would make it less of a political issue.
Just some suggestions.
Sounds great. When are you going to plan on having this website up and running?Delete
Well, I don't have the $30,000.00 dollars that you are offering in this challenge. I was just offering a suggestion of an approach you might take as a scientist with the money if you were truly interested in advancing this subject in the interest of science and public awareness.Delete
To be honest, even if I did have the money to create such a site, I'm not a scientist so I probably would not have the pull in the scientific community to get them to allow peer-reviewed journal articles to be openly disseminated. You are a scientist; you would probably have the pull to do it or alternatively someone else in academia could do it.
Ultimately, I don't suspect anyone will disprove man-made climate change under the current conditions of your challenge. So, your money is safe. However, if after the challenge you want to do more to advance the Climate Change discussion then, well, there is always my helpful suggestion.
Once again, you have fallen under the trap of the deniers. The challenge is not to disprove man made global warming, the challenge is for deniers to put up or shut up.Delete
I apologize, sir, my intention is not to aggravate. Well, there is two months left before this challenge is over. I have the time, maybe there is something I can do.Delete
May I ask, what is the definitive peer-reviewed journal article proving climate change is man made? By that, I don't mean a meta-analysis or a review of history. I mean the definitive journal article which is a prime example of man made climate change providing the best evidence.
Again, I am not a denier. To be honest, I have no vested interest in whether climate change is man made. However, you presented this fun and interesting challenge and in the spirit of inquiry why not.
Indirectly, you actually do have a vested interest. A carbon tax, for example, will slow down the economy and reduce tax receipts to the US Government. This could affect your compensation, or even your job security itself. Furthermore, with the approaching retirement crisis, the US Government really needs a strong economy to pay the retirement obligations. If we go down the road that the global warmists want us to go down, then the US Treasury will flounder in debt. This will affect you by causing inflation. Inflation hurts the purchasing power of your dollars. You may not have a direct vested interest, but indirectly, you have a huge vested interest in this issue.Delete
Henry Maldonado: There is no one definitive piece of work. That is something that separates scientists and deniers. Deniers like to come out with some one thing and claim it proves their point (it never does). Scientists spend decades (and longer!) making incremental improvements to our understanding, adding that small piece to the ever growing body of knowledge that others contribute to. In my book I used over 200 references and I really tried to keep it down. The entire subject of climate change in general and global warming in particular is very complicated. Here is a link to an article about the efforts of some people to provide tutorials. I know that is not what you are looking for, but it is a start.Delete
A carbon tax is not likely to slow down the economy. Even ExxonMobil is in favor of the tax.Delete
"If policymakers do move to impose a cost on carbon, we believe that a carbon tax would be a more effective policy option to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than alternatives such as cap-and-trade."
People were making similar claims about the computer revolution, that it would destroy jobs and hurt the economy. The opposite was true. The evidence is that an industry to deal with climate change will have the same effect. Solar power is already booming and creating many thousands of jobs and reducing utility bills. Solar power is now cheaper than grid power in some states and approaching that in many others. This is just one example.
The comparison to the computer industry doesn't carry much water, in my view. Computers increase efficiency of data-intensive activities. They were/are a technological innovation that enhances the productivity of corporations.Delete
A carbon tax is not a technological innovation, and it does nothing to improve the productivity of the economy. It is very well documented by economists that increases in the price of crude oil quickly filter through the entire economy, reducing the Consumer's ability to purchase other goods and services, because they must pay more for their fuel.
A Carbon Tax will have the exact same impact on the economy as a rise in the crude oil price. It will reduce the ability of the Consumer to purchase other goods and services, thereby reducing demand, and reducing the aggregate output of the economy, which is otherwise known as GDP.
Carbon tax is only one example. But, show me how it is counterproductive. The studies of increases of oil prices were done in different environments. Today, we are getting closer and closer to affordable alternatives. Plus, keep in mind the purpose of the carbon tax. The idea behind a carbon tax is that carbon emissions end up costing us through various effects. That cost is then passed on to governments and consumers. The carbon tax is suppose to cover those expenses. I say 'suppose to' because we all know what happens when governments get their hands on tax revenues. But, if applied the way they are suppose to be applied, they would pay for expenses that would otherwise be passed on, allowing governments and consumers to spend their money elsewhere.Delete
I also take issue with the characterization of Exxon Mobil as being "in favor" of a carbon tax, based on that quote.Delete
That quote says that they prefer a carbon tax over a cap and trade system. They view the carbon tax as a lesser evil than the cap and trade system; but that doesn't mean that they favor either of those options over the "do nothing" option.
Comparing new tax ideas to new technological innovation is simply not an apples to apples comparison; and it highlights the fallacy of left-wing political and economic thought.Delete
You talk about tax ideas as if they are a wondrous, new invention that will change the world for the better! There is no tax increase of any kind that will do so.
There is nothing useful, novel, or non-obvious about tax increases; and they should not be thought of in that light.
What's next? Will the left start to file patent applications on new tax ideas?!
Really, I'm too busy to do your homework for you. Please do a little bit of work before you comment. Here is Exxon's statement:Delete
Keeping in mind the central importance of energy to economies of the world, ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions.
Clearly, they do NOT favor the do nothing approach.
And, please, stop patiently waiting for 10% of the information before jumping to the wrong conclusion. Why in the world would you assume I'm a liberal. I might as well assume you are some kind of neo-Nazi because you favor destroying the world's environment and subjecting billions of people to a reduced standard of living just so a bunch of billionaires can make more money.
How did it feel?
You know nothing about me or my political stands, so stop acting like you do.
I know that you support tax increases, Professor. That's all I need to know.Delete
Once again, you make an assumption that is not supported by any evidence in existence. No wonder you're a denier. You just are not interested in any facts that might interfere with your conclusion. I said Exxon supported the carbon tax, I never said I did. Just one false argument after another.Delete
So, what policy option do you support? If you say, "cap and trade," well then I put that in the same category as a tax increase.Delete
Why do you care? You already think global warming doesn't exist. By your philosophy, we don't need to do anything at all. This challenge is about deniers' claims global warming doesn't exist. Dealing with the problem will be topic for something in the future.Delete
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 ...ReplyDelete
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.
Please follow the link below for the complete article that I wrote on this matter.
Mr. Gal, this is a response to both your reply to my post and this post. As for whether I have an indirect interest on this issue, I want to separate the science from the politics. What I mean by that is even supposing Climate Change is man made--I'm not indicating it is or isn't, I really don't know--that doesn't necessarily lead to the political conclusion of a Carbon Tax. To me the fact that politicians have suggested it as a solution is a failure of politics which has lead to this becoming a political issue. It would seem a more Economically beneficial policy to hold if Climate Change is man made is to incentivize research into creating technology that could, "clean," the problem. Again, this may sound naive, but if Climate Science followed the Scientific Method through experimentation instead of statistics--refer to my earlier posts where I discuss this--one of the by products would be some sort of technological solution.Delete
Now, Mr Gal, in regards to this post. It seems to me like your points one and two form the basis for a testable hypothesis. The problem is that I don't believe it has been tested. Part of the Scientific method is create an experiment where this can be tested. So, in the interest of Science and you are an educated man, maybe you know of some kind of experiment that could test the hypothesis. Again, read my previous comments to see why this may will probably take longer than a month to do and might take more than $30,000.00 to do. But, in the interest of Science, your suggestion may lead someone with the time to conduct the Scientific Method through experimentation and test the hypothesis.Delete
To me, the most compelling argument is point three. That is why I requested the most definitive peer review article proving climate change is man made. If the most compelling article is simply some statistical regression or the like of historical data points over time well that is easy to refute. Essentially, that is not the Scientific Method and not Science. If that is the most definitive evidence--I don't know if it is--then I can easily impose other unrelated data sets with no connection to climate change and show that statistically that is the cause as well. Again, I would only do this not in the interest of Climate Change but in the general interest of Science. The point being Statistics in't Science, it is a tool but not the Science itself. The ultimate problem when Statistics is treated as Science, aside from the one you pointed out in three, is that ultimately Statistics will never provide the solution. I can elaborate, but does this make sense? Also, you can look on my previous comments on this page to get a better sense of my argument.
Again, my interest is only in having an honest discussion.
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.Delete
Thanks for the notification, Dr. Keating. I have some additional thoughts, which I probably should've listed as "Point #4." I will publish, here, below; and you can do as you wish with them.Delete
Addendum To My Original Post:Delete
Point #4: PV = nRT
As the number of moles of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, then - all else being equal - the volume of the atmosphere will increase, not the Temperature. Why? Because the outer surface of the atmosphere faces the zero pressure environment of outer space. So, there is nothing for the gases of the atmosphere to "push against."
If there were some sort of barrier (say, for example, a massive plastic sheet that surrounded the entire atmosphere and restricted its physical expansion), then the Volume would be fixed, and the increased number of moles of CO2 would cause both pressure and temperature to rise, according to the Ideal Gas Law. However, there is no physical boudary surrounding the atmosphere. Therefore, as the number of moles of CO2 increases, then the volume of the atmosphere expands without raising pressure or temperature.
In effect, the atmosphere has a massive, built-in "pressure release valve."
Point #4 has been included.Delete
Further on Point #4.Delete
This also explains why people observe an increase in temperature in a "coke bottle experiment", where pressurized CO2 is pumped into a two-litre, plastic bottle.
It is not the heat capacity or the heat conducitivity of the CO2 that causes the observed temperature increase.
Rather, it is the pressure increase inside the Fixed Volume container, which causes the temperature increase, according to the Ideal Gas Law.
PV = nRT
When the V is fixed by the container, then the increase in # moles and the increase in the Pressure from the pressurized CO2, does cause a temperature rise.
However, this model (the "Coke Bottle Model" is not a good model of the atmosphere, because it is a fixed volume model. The atmosphere does not have a physical, outer boundary, like the coke bottle does. Therefore, the volume of the atmosphere can expand, unlike the volume of the plastic coke bottle.
In other words, the atmosphere has a built-in "pressure release valve", as I already stated.
This letter, from 49 high level NASA scientists who were later fired from their skepticism on global warming, is really all the proof that anyone needs.
Global Warming is a political movement, run by a group of highly aggressive and unethical left-wing leaders who employ the same kind of tactics employed by Saddam Hussein in order to maintain the so-called "scientific consensus." In short, scientists who speak out against it are terminated.
It's not a scientific consensus that was arrived at through open, honest, intellectual exchange of ideas and data. Rather, it is a political consensus that is enforced by Stalinesque political tactics.
Putting aside the science, this is all you really need to know to disprove the hypothesis ...
But, if that's not enough, then how about a little history on the current Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen.Delete
Hansen, it turns out, is much more of an activist than a scientist. Someone with such extreme views as this will not create the kind of culture in which open and honest discussion of the sciences can occur. Someone with these kinds of extreme, left-wing views will apply extreme leftist tactics (a.k.a. Stalinism) to achieve his goals ...
" As Brian Sussman points out in his explosive new book “Eco-Tyranny,” there is nothing new about these kinds of statements, as Hansen has a long history of extreme claims and advocacy on behalf of large-scale government regulation.
For example, in May 2011, Hansen advocated redistribution of wealth by placing a “flat rising fee on carbon” with the objective of “affect[ing] consumers and chang[ing] lifestyles. People with lavish lifestyles will pay more in increased energy costs … and they will see that their personal decisions make a difference.”
Clearly, he is using the issue as a justification for wealth redistribution. Honest science and/or real environmental goals take a back seat to his real goal of wealth redistribution ...
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/rebellion-at-nasa-against-global-warming/#fzuGCohegdYslXbB.99
With regard to the NASA scientists, I thought I had read somewhere that the 49 scientists who wrote that letter were later fired. At the moment, I cannot find my source on that. I was going from memory. Apparently, my memory has not served me well.Delete
However, there are some other articles about people who have experienced career troubles as a result of their global warming skepticism, one example of which follows:
Here is another high level scientist who experienced "Climate McCarthyism" when he began to raise doubts about the science of global warming. This may have been what I was remembering ...Delete
And, a report of a journal article being rejected because it doesn't fit with the political narrative.Delete
"The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’ "Delete
That is not a scientific reason for rejecting an article. That is a political and public relations reason.
Wow! You have all of this time to comment on my blog, but not enough time to do your own homework.Delete
I have reviewed several of these claims that papers were denied because they were contrary to climate change. Everyone I have looked at has been a false claim. This is just one more thing deniers use to deceive the public.
Allegations of Climate McCarthyism and Leftist Bias notwithstanding, I do still look forward to your discussion of my scientific issues with the hypothesis (Points #1 - #4).Delete
And, where is your homework, Dr. Professor?Delete
You allege that the claims in the articles I posted are false, but you did not provide any verification or substantiation for your allegations.
Please site your source for the allegation that these are false claims.
And, by the way, saying simply "I am the professor, and therefore I am right" does not carry any weight in my book.Delete
Such assertions only prove the point that those in positions of authority are abusing their authority. I don't respond to authority. I respond to logic and reason ... scientific reason.
And, I am still waiting for your scientific discussion of my points #1 - #4. You have yet to address those.
I am not aware I ever said "I am the professor, therefore I am right." I will address your points, but it will probably take a couple of weeks. Like I told you earlier, there are over 20 submissions ahead of you. You can track the progress I am making on this page:Delete
On the letter form the "49 NASA scientists" perhaps you should read your own link. First off, the people who signed the letter couldn't have been fired for their beliefs - they specifically refer to themselves in the letter as "former NASA employees".
Secondly, a quick perusal of the list of authors reveals that,far from being "top NASA scientists", this is a list of engineers,astronauts, administrators, and launch/rocket/mateirals scientists. There is not one person trained in climate science, meteorology, or anything close to pertaining to the topic at hand. Just being a former NASA employee doesn't automatically give them any automatic gravity regarding climate, or indeed any other topic in which they aren't trained.
For the record, my name is Paul Cottle. I'm a former NASA employee (at GSFC) and PhD student in atmospheric science. By no means a climate expert - but I CAN read.
LOL! PV=nRT???? nuff said. Why is Earth do you think it okay to use classical thermodynamics? I bet your one of those idiots who thinks that you'd freeze if you stepped outside of a space ship.Delete
Hi this is anonymous #2. As a member of the scientific community, you should know what the average student's likelihood of getting a faculty position, then tenure is, it is rather low. At the moment, one could call academic science rather competitive. If you are good and lucky, you can become a principal investigator (PI). Much of a PI's time is spent applying for a seemingly ever dwindling supply of grant money. In fact, one might compare the process to a rat race, where all head PI's compete for a piece of the same pie. The availability of grant money on a particular research area is strongly dependent on the politics, at the time. Just ask the unfortunate biologists who were interested in stem cell research a few years ago.
We have plenty of bright boys and girls with degrees in all sorts of branches of engineering and science who would love to build rockets to send people up to Mars. They existed back in 1972 as well. It's been over 40 years since that time; lately we have been sending our astronauts up to the ISS on russian rockets because we don't have the political capital to generate the money needed to make our own. Frankly, this situation is a little embarrassing.
This goes pretty far to prove that science in the US is inextricably linked to the politics of the time. It is generally treated, at a national level, as a surplus-budget pastime; as opposed to an economy stimulating activity. To the savvy "guild" of physicists; they know that grant money is their career's lifeblood. Without it, they cannot do research. They cannot make money, they cannot afford bread. So what does the savvy "guild" of physicists do? They play politics to give themselves a bigger piece of the grant pie. The economists have a name for this kind of behavior, they call it "rent-seeking".
This has several unfortunate, unintended consequences; first of all, it has the nauseating effect of generating intense dependency of the scientists and their research on the political whims. Secondly, if you think that marketing has a strong "reality distortion field"; you should really take a long hard look at the history of politics. This has a more dangerous consequence... when facts become intentionally distorted or exaggerated by the scientific community out of desperation.
There has another possible dynamic to this which is interesting... guild membership. Anyone who is part of the guild, doesn't really want to say anything that will reduce the money the guild obtains. Anyone who is outside of the guild, who tries to call foul can be dismissed as not being part of the "guild", therefore, not an expert in the area of "guild foo". Paul, dismissing those who are not climate experts shuts down discussion; some people fall for this tactic, but it is a political tactic and it is also not a scientific thing to say, "they are not climate scientists".
What is a rocket scientist, really? They are not that different from climate scientists. The undergraduate education that they receive is the same, this gives them their BS. The graduate education that they receive, by and large, and discounting a class or two, is the same! They understand dynamics. They can make things fly in the atmosphere, so to dismiss them as being incapable of understanding the "finer intricacies" of the atmosphere because they are not the flavor of guild member that you are, is insulting, counter productive, and just plain wrong. Because you damn well know that they probably know as much about the math that drives dynamics as you do, and they might even know more. All that it takes to screw up that hockey stick graph is for a little system; maybe a forest, maybe an oceanic algae growth, that drains CO2 from the atmosphere faster than your climate model predicts.
I will quote the Princess Bride: "We are not politicians. We are scientists. Discombobulating the public does not become us. "
Please let me know your precise email address to which people must forward their submissions?
You may make your submission as a comment here on the blog.Delete
Chris, your challenge is to prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.ReplyDelete
Can you clarify what you mean by climate change?
By the term climate change, do you mean dangerous man-made global warming, due primarily to human activity CO2 emissions, resulting in adverse effects on the climate in the future, as is promoted by the IPCC and high profile figures such as Al Gore and Prince Charles?
The challenge is in response to claims by deniers that man made global warming is not real and it is easy to prove. If you have made (or agree with) that statement, then it should be pretty clear what you mean. If you have not made that statement (or agree with it), then the challenge isn't for you.Delete
You say " If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere". It is a poor scientist who does not understand the difference between "cut and paste" and "copy and paste". How are we to take any of your refutation seriously?ReplyDelete
That's the best you can come up with? I'll cut and paste you comment into a document for future reference.Delete
Post your theory and then we can show where it fails. If you fail to post your theory I have proven you do not have one to defend. QED: you have not proven human produced CO2 is behind the current 400 year warming, therefore it is not even a theory, let alone an firm law of physics. Thus, it does not exist.ReplyDelete
Legally, I am correct - so make sure you have a unassailable theory that can be considered a law of physics showing the connection (without any uncertainties) between human CO2 generation and global warming. Seriously, did you not think of the legal ramifications of your challenge?
Well, your silly little threat isn't anything I'm concerned with. Go study law before you start making stupid threats like that. But, as it turns out, I have provided my argument in my book. You are welcome to purchase it, if you think you can understand it.Delete
As for the challenge, it is my challenge to make. You do not have to participate. I am providing a venue for deniers to come through on their claim that man made global warming is not real and it is easy to prove. So, let's see you do it.
BTW, The scientific method demands you set the theory out that is your basis of claim and we "peer" review it. Hope you have that $30K ready. DO NOT dismiss my challenge to your challenge - there are rules for this in case lawReplyDelete
You are dismissed. I guess that mean you can file your lawsuit now.Delete
A climatologist I was reading in der Spiegel recently (guy named Von Storch) said that he can only account for the current climate pause since 1998 in 2% of his simulations, and that in 5 years at this rate, something would be "fundamentally wrong" with his models - i.e., falsified.ReplyDelete
Climate models are the keystone to the whole AGW argument, and if they don't have any reliable predictive properties, you might as well be using a Ouija Board. This doesn't outright debunk your theory, but if you want to hang your hat on a 2% and diminishing odds, I guess you can. Even if temperatures started to tick up again, that still wouldn't give your models any reliable properties, but if they don't, that means you couldn't guess right even once.
If you would do a little bit of homework you find your entire argument is false. First, climate science does not rely on models, it relies on data and science. Second, the models have been shown to be quite accurate. Model inaccuracy is one of the deceptions that deniers keep making. Do a simple Internet search and you can find very reputable sources attesting to the accuracy of the models. Unless, of course, you're afraid to learn you're wrong.Delete
Which models have been shown to be accurate? The Global Circulation models? The Climate models? The Neural Network Climate models? Are you going to refer to data in an IPCC report? Where are the reputable sources? Don't tell me to do my homework, different people find different resources reputable, where are they? Which data undeniably proves that climate change is caused by people? It won't take long. Please? Just a reference or two?
If you would care to do your own homework you can answer that question. But, I have found facts are not something deniers are interested in, so I guess that excuses you from doing any homework. Do a quick search using "climate model accuracy" and you get plenty of hits. I'll give you a freebie, since you can't seem to do it yourself:Delete
The proof is that C02 absorbs heat on a logarithmic basis due to the laws of quantum physics. The theory of global warming is based on obsolete Newtonian physics that treats the layer of gas as a "blanket" rather than an array of particles that absorbs and reflects due to its particular nature.ReplyDelete
This means that the more C02 man adds, the lower the marginal effect for each addition, until after 1.2 degrees or so the effect will become infinitesimal.
You should go back and learn something about climate change before you make comments.Delete
I won. You have no response to my argument.ReplyDelete
Good lord, you're going to be wasting a lot of time dealing with this challenge, not to mention the repetitious arguments you'll have over standards of proof as well as basic physics! Presumably you've already well aware of this, good luck!ReplyDelete
You can't imagine.Delete
It is almost like you have no argument and have to use insults instead...ReplyDelete
Argument to what? You have to give a logical argument before you can get a logical response.Delete
OK Chris I will give it to you straight up.ReplyDelete
Climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is if measurable, a negative quantity.
CO2 in the stratosphere must cool it. Earth exchanges heat with the upper atmosphere at a temperature averaging about -70 deg.C. If the Troposphere warms against CO2 forcing, the heat transfer rate between Earth and stratosphere has to increase because the temperature difference widens. The reverse contradicts thermodynamic stability.
Chris, with all your bravado, you cannot provide a rational argument against it. You made your grandiose "wager" with absolutely no intention of paying. None.
You will attempt to contradict me with nonsense and ultimately with condescension because that is all you and your ilk have to disprove any argument that comes your way.
Thanks for the non payment of money you never had in the first place to pay,
Brian G Valentine
We're waiting, Chris. We're waiting for your witty comments, your forced laughter, your irritation, and your inability to respond rationally.Delete
There must be somebody you can call for help Chris.Delete
Michael Mann. Jim Hansen. Gavin. Somebody. Anybody! Help!
Hope they don't hang up the phone and tell you you're on your own
Sorry, I was out with friends instead of sitting on the Internet waiting for a response every minute. You posted at 10:22 and by 10:50 you were frustrated I hadn't answered.Delete
Why would you assume CO2 in the stratosphere must cool it? That is not a reasonable assumption. Provide me with some literature that says CO2 in the stratosphere results in a cooler stratosphere.
Your challenge is a classic example of burden shifting. Under the scientific method, the proponent of a hypothesis always bears the burden of proving his hypothesis. In this case, the scientific method should go something like this:
1) I observe that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming over time.
2) I hypothesize that human GHG emissions are causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm over time.
3) Test the hypothesis.
The scientific method does not involve challenges to prove negatives. We never see the following in a legitimate scientific article:
1) I observe that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming over time.
2) I hypothesize that human GHG emissions are causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm over time.
3) Prove I am wrong.
It is, of course, impossible to prove any but the simplest negatives to a certainty. The best one can do is employ the inductive logic of modus tollens or denying the consequent to prove the negative beyond a reasonable doubt. This method essentially boils down to showing that no one has proven the AGW hypothesis.
We start by defining the AGW hypothesis:
Assumption 1 - The green house theory: GHGs in the atmosphere retain solar energy and thus increase atmospheric temperature.
Assumption 2 – Carbon forcing: GHGs are the primary determinant of atmospheric temperature.
Conclusion: Atmospheric temperature will rise in tandem with human GHG emissions into the atmosphere.
Every single computer climate model used to “prove” the AGW hypothesis makes these assumptions and arrives at this conclusion.
We then apply modus tollens to the AGW hypothesis:
Assumption 1: If the AGW hypothesis is correct, atmospheric temperature will rise in tandem with human GHG emissions into the atmosphere.
Observation: While human GHG emissions into the atmosphere have risen exponentially since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric temperature has risen and fallen.
Conclusion: The AGW hypothesis is incorrect.
Let us spend a little time discussing the observation in the prior syllogism. I believe that both AGW proponents and opponents accept that human GHG emissions into the atmosphere have risen exponentially since the Industrial Revolution. The dispute is over measuring atmospheric temperature.
The raw surface temperature data available from weather stations and sea buoys is grossly inadequate to calculate an average atmospheric temperature over time accurate to a tenth of a degree to any degree of statistical reliability. The sources only cover a small fraction of the Earth’s surface, have come and gone over the years, use changing equipment maintained to different standards and took readings are widely varying times. The limited raw temperature data we do have is noisy as hell and swings wildly up and down by between 1-4 degrees over both short term yearly and long term decadal measures.
Raw temperature data is not rising exponentially in tandem with human GHG emissions. Instead, it is often falling or not changing at all.
AGW proponents never use the actual raw temperature data, though. Every AGW database (MET, NOAA, GISS and BEST) is statistically smoothed and the data from a single weather station is assumed to be a proxy for often enormous areas of the Earth’s surface through the process of Kriging.
Let us put aside the technical problems with to outright fraud employed in some of these databases and accept the AGW “adjusted” temperature databases as generally accurate. They all claim that atmospheric temperature went up by less than a degree over the beginning of the last century, went down by less than a degree between the 1940s and 1970s, went up by less than a degree from 1980 to 1998 and then flatlined for the past 17 years.
Adjusted temperature data is not rising exponentially in tandem with human GHG emissions. Instead, it is falling or not changing over multiple decades.
Please donate the money to the charity of your choice. I would be satisfied if you would actually concede the points.
You spent a long time on an invalid point. The deniers are making claims, which they state are scientific. I am asking them to prove them. If they cannot, they demonstrate that they are merely working to deceive the public and not allow people to make an informed decision based on the facts and science. If they are able to prove their claims are right, then they prove that man made global warming is not real.Delete
Let us be clear, the deniers are the ones making the hypothesis, so the burden is on them to prove their claims.
You seem to feel you have a hypothesis (you made come claims in your comment), are you prepared to back them up with scientific evidence? Or, are you just going to go about making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to deceive people?
You have presented the hypothesis. The burden in on you to prove it.
Your use of the pejorative term "denier," unscientific burden shifting and refusal to address the fact that the AGW hypothesis is contrary to both the actual and adjusted temperature record merely demonstrates you are unserious and are acting in bad faith.
Think on it.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Is that an example of your best logical thinking?Delete
After reading some of your explanations, Dr Keating, I have some additional questions.ReplyDelete
1.) Your responses seem to discount natural cycles as a reason for climate change. After reading your rebuttal against so called "deniers", what level of the natural cycle factors in to account for what we are observing today? I mean, the natural cycle just didn't go away.
2.) If GHG are causing an unnatural warming of the environment, shouldn't we be having fairly consistent warmer nights - no matter what season we are in? Are we observing this?
Thank you for your consideration of these questions.
The natural cycles are there and that is something deniers keep ignoring. In fact, it is frequently a fatal flaw in their argument. That's because the natural cycle right now is for a cooling cycle. If not for man made global warming, the climate would be getting cooler. I have covered that quite a bit.Delete
We are seeing consistently warming nights. This is a serious concern. The environment needs cool nights in order to refresh from the day. Night time is getting so warm that the refresh isn't happening as well.
I needed to refresh my computer for updates and found your statement dated yesterday, July 3, 2014. I have been up to now very professional in my statements and will attempt to be here as I take extreme exception to your claims about "The Challenge is Impossible/It's a Religion."
You use these two arguments in a way to belittle ALL attempts at your challenge. You continue to tell all those whose scientific explanations you've accepted that there are 25-30 submissions and you need until the end of September to "address" all submissions. Yet, in yesterday's statement you say, "None of them have turned out to be scientifically valid." So, in essence, even though you have stated needing 3 months to consider the submissions, you have already made your determination without the "promised" review of each one accepted per "the scientific method."
You make such a big deal of the so called deniers using "the scientific method" for their arguments - where is your scientific method in determining your position? And no, don't refer us to one of your books or the miles of papers and links "supporting your position."
You use this challenge not as a useful exchange of ideas and information, but just to support your bravado that your argument is the so-called best one. You do not define man-made climate change and play a game of semantics saying you are not asking anyone to "disprove man made climate change" but instead to "show that man made climate change is not real", Despite what you may think, most people would take this to mean the exact same thing. Many have asked you to clarify this, but still you don't. As you have already made you decisions regarding each submission, long before your September 30 "deadline", one an only conclude that this "challenge" is only a fraudulent attempt for publicity's sake to sell your next book.
I thought a professor of physics would hold himself to much higher standards. You have seriously disappointed a fellow professional not just about the money but one who was looking for a thoughtful dialogue on the matter. Maybe you will consider these points for future submissions, but seeing just how you act, I'm not holding my breath.
I did not say I need until the end of September to address all submissions. I said I will address them no later than September 30. That is to give myself leeway in case there are 100 submissions a the end. Why did you focus on that statement (and misquote it) and ignore all the times I have said I will get to the submission as quickly as I can? And, yes, so far, none of the submissions I have reviewed have been scientifically valid. So, what? Are you saying that because none are valid that none will be valid? That is false argument and is of the variety I keep seeing in from deniers. The second does not follow from the first.Delete
I am not using this challenge to show my argument is the best one. It isn't. You need to go into a lot more science than I presented in my book to get the best argument, but that requires years of training.
No, I am using this challenge to show that deniers are actively working to deceive people and preventing them from being able to make an informed decision. If someone wants to deny global warming, that is there right. But, they have a right to hear the facts and the fact is deniers are making claims they cannot back up. That is what this challenge is all about.
As for my comments about it being impossible/being a religion, I stand by my comments. That is just a way for deniers to weasel out. They cannot back up their claims, so they will make those ludicrous statements and then keep on making their claims.
You are guilty of everything you state the deniers do. You play a game of semantics with phrases that show 1.) English may be your second language or 2.) you may have some sort of LD. Don't patronize me about requiring many years of training - you don't know what I do, but I assure you my training has been and continues to be vigorous. Toward that end, I do NOT give you permission to use my analogy as to how certain elements of climate change reflect how the human body works. Clearly, you do not understand all the nuances of that. Funny because you expect just these same nuances from anyone making a statement here.Delete
You refuse to use the questions people here pose to you to clarify definitions. You as a so called professor of physics should understand the importance of that. I dread how you conduct yourself with your classes and professional affliliations - without providing the rigorous scientific method to your own theories, You stand by your arguments using the arguments loved by those with narcissistic personality disorder - "because I said so." NPD's employ gaslighting like you do with your play on words, and NPD's love to seek out fame and attention - thereby your so-called "challenge."
You say you are "using this challenge to show that deniers are actively working to deceive people and preventing them from making an informed decision." (or are you going to again say I misquoted you?) You are doing the exact same thing. A scientist that won't use the scientific method towards their own theories are nothing more than a fraud.
I finally realized you are just a troll trying to take up my time. Move along now.Delete
Just wanted to commend you for your hard work. You're no doubt going to get a LOT of annoying nonsense. It's a fate I would not wish on anyone, but you volunteered for it. Know that we will be pushing people your way. We will be making your job harder, not easier. But don't let that discourage you - don't allow that to conceal how much we all appreciate what you're doing. And I sincerely hope you have the stamina and patience to endure it. Thanks you.ReplyDelete
That was a very nice comment. Thank you.Delete
I've been doing this for a long time, now. Contrary to what is being said, this actually preceded my book by several years. The difference is it has gotten a lot of publicity. It is a cause I feel strongly about and am willing to do the work. I am retired now and have the time, so it is working out well.
Please, send as many people this way as you can.
The promotion of AGW junk science has probably been the most detrimental hoax perpetrated on the world in a hundred years.Delete
Detrimental to fossil fuel billionaires. Beneficial for everyone else.Delete
People need to warm themselves in the winter, not just "billionaires."Delete
Promotion of this junk science has taken its toll on poor people in Europe and it is time for the nonsense to end. People in Africa, elsewhere, are doomed to interminable poverty and sickness and misery until the stupidity comes to a halt.
You're not helping, Christopher. Your internet follies are not helping one bit.
Show any evidence that addressing climate change is hurting people. The evidence is overwhelming that the people being hurt the most by climate change are the poor. As utility bills go up, they will have to reduce the usage of electricity. As food bills go up, they will be forced to a worse nutritional regimen. As things like insurance rates go up, they will have to cut back, putting themselves at risk. What are the rich doing? Just going on their merry way. When the heat waves come in, the rich will turn up the AC, the poor will suffer and die. When the droughts come in, the rich will get their water, the marginal farmers and ranchers will go without and lose their crops and maybe even their farms and ranches. When severe storms do damage, the rich will just pay for repair, the poor will not be able to.Delete
Be careful about going all high and mighty before you have done your homework. Take a look here:
If you're not aware of the damage already done in Europe by greenies, I am not going to point it out because I shouldn't have to.Delete
Anymore than I should have to show you that the stratosphere cools with increased CO2, you ought to know that much and you oughtn't to be baiting people over the Internet if your actual knowledge is that poor.
All this "climate change evidence" is completely baseless, it is natural cycles, it all ebbs and flows, and anybody over the age of 30 throughout recorded history could tell you the same thing.
I could talk all day long, you're still going to be smug and bait people over the Internet, so long.
Apparently $30,000 isn't incentive enough for you to show the evidence that you claim "anybody over the age of 30 throughout recorded history could" provide. So be it. No $30k for you.Delete
The stratosphere is cooling because the ozone layer has been damaged. The ozone layer absorbs incoming UV light and heats the stratosphere while protecting us from that UV light at the same time. Another factor in stratospheric cooling is that CO2 is trapping heat in the troposphere and reducing the amount of energy reaching the stratosphere. The stratosphere is not cooling because CO2 in that layer is cooling it.Delete
Here is an article on this subject from Weather Underground:
I may not be a climate change denier, but that does not mean I'm not going to try to get your $30,000! Let me take a different approach. At the end of the day, the ecosystem is sustained out of thermodynamic equilibrium via energy from the sun. As this entropy is constantly dissipated, complex structures form ala http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system . Overtime these structures may in turn form other structures, which may in time make large-scale changed in the composition and processes of the ecosystem in general. For instance, the abundance of algae and other photosynthetic assemblages dramatically increased the ratio of oxygen to CO2 on the planet. Overtime the ecosystem has evolved plants, animals, what-have-you, that, overtime, have contributed to large scale changes in the climate. This has always been the result of energy from the sun being dissipated through complex chemical interactions and transport. And so it is today, such dissipative structures have resulting in cars, factories, etc., that in turn dissipate stored energy from the sun. So you see in the end it has always been the sun that, through natural thermodynamic processes, has led to climate change, and which today has ultimately led to a dramatic increase in CO2, which has caused more absorption of thermal energy. It is ultimately the sun, through thermodynamic processes, that has led to climate change.ReplyDelete
Well, the Sun was formed from a collapsing nebula billions of years ago. And, that nebula formed from something else and on backwards all the way to the Big Bang. By your logic, global warming is caused by the Big Bang. In fact, all actions and reactions are caused by the Big Bang. So, why do we need prisons for? Obviously, every crime was committed by the Big Bang.ReplyDelete
The Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. We would not have an changing temperature if that was the case. Having said that, natural processes lock up greenhouse gases in natural reservoirs. It has been human intervention that has removed those gases from the reservoirs and released them into the atmosphere.
Sorry, no luck.
I would argue that prisons were also created by the Big Bang. (Joking/kidding.)Delete
You missed the part about the goal being to show that humans were not an integral part of the casual chain, and I've only shown that the casual chain extends past humans, not that they were not part of it, therefore I have not met the criteria.
Anyways, I figured it was a long-shot, but more tenable than trying to argue against the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence, with nary a shred, and also more tenable than showing our understanding of chemistry and light to be fatally flawed.
Points for creativity? Haha, I'd understand if I don't get any -- I've reviewed some of the other submissions and uh, I can't say they're not creative.
I enjoy logical arguments like this and frequently discuss these kinds of things with friends, so thanks for you submission. But, the essential question is whether the issue is, or is not, real with, or without, the argument. It is possible to make clever semantic arguments about things to show something doesn't exist when we know it is. A bumblebee can fly, no matter what kind of argument is made on the topic.Delete
I'm a spectator here, enjoying the show, but it seems to me that you could help everyone out by providing some notion of what standards of evidence you require to consider a submission as "valid" scientifically.ReplyDelete
What would a winning entry look like? Do you require a chain of reasoning with peer reviewed papers supporting each link in their reasoning? If so, let's say one of the links has scanty evidentiary support, or weak evidence running counter to their claim, how will you evaluate their submission? Are results found in journals to be considered definitively true, or probably true with some sliding likelihood?
What if a submission shows the results of a data analysis demonstrating some important correlations at odds with GW theory, yet without a theoretical model to interpret them? Would this be acceptable, or must the submitter offer a full theory, complete down to the basic physics?
Or perhaps you're not expecting anything approaching credible science, and therefore aren't worried, or prepared to start splitting hairs? I ask this question, because I often want to know what sort of response is expected before I start crafting a reply.
That standard was included to preclude "Because God said so" arguments. The more science and the better the references, the more valid the submission will be. I don't have any specific level in mind and frequently accept statements with no supporting evidence simply to give the benefit of the doubt to the submitter. I can research the statement and determine the scientific validity.Delete
Presumably those who claim that it is easy to show scientifically that climate change can be wholly explained by natural processes know what it means to show something scientifically. By claiming they have valid and convincing scientific evidence, they claim to know what makes something scientifically valid and what doesn't. So be it. Let's see what they claim to know.Delete
happyjack27: Anyone who has ever dealt with armchair scientists knows that your fist statement is false: they don't frequently know what it means to show something scientifically. This is the easy case for Mr. Keating. The more difficult consideration he may have to deal with will be individuals who may be following the rules, but relying on debatable facts and interpretation. To "show something scientifically" is not as black and white as you seem to suggest. Seeing as a fairly large sum is at stake, I assumed that some standards had been worked out to help determine, without post-hoc bias, what constitutes a win, a la the James Randi challenge.ReplyDelete
Dr. Keating has said repeatedly, in response to such concerns, that for the safe of this contest, he is setting a VERY low bar.Delete
I am pretty lenient and try to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt. I can examine their claims and determine if they are scientifically valid. You are correct about "arm chair scientists" but I don't want to do anything that would make it appear I am excluding people. Having said that, any submission must still pass scientific muster and be supported by facts and evidence. This is especially true if they want to make some claim that is counter to accepted theory.ReplyDelete
“Prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.”ReplyDelete
Your challenge is impossible. The scientific method does not accommodate proof. Rather, it is a process in which reasoning and evidence come together to advance understanding. Whether this ‘understanding’ is ‘real’ is also by definition improvable.
The best that any who accept your challenge can achieve is to provide evidence and reasoning to support a position, which would itself be subject to the same scrutiny as any other. To gain traction in the scientific community, for example, that position would then require interest, review, research, testing, and retesting over time.
The theory that climate change is man-made has certainly gained support in popular science. Unfortunately, this has occurred at the expense of recognition for the 'precautionary principle', itself a superior decision making instrument. Personally, I am neither a ‘man made climate change denier’ nor the polar opposite, and it is exactly because I adhere to scientific method that I am not required to adopt either stance.
You, sir, are a troll, seeking credibility by attaching a price tag to your nonsense. The wording of your challenge demonstrates thinking processes that are at best vague. The idea that your judgement would count as final in a scientific debate of this kind serves nicely to illustrate confusion in your perception of self.
My comments come more as a warning to the readers of this blog than for you.
Nicely stated. Well done. Kudos on intelligent response.Delete
That was definitely NOT an intelligent response. It's basically,"you've asked people to provide support for their claims, therefore you are wrong" and an inverse of ad populum: "it's popular, therefore it's wrong." and then an ad hominem circumstantial, etc. it's an amalgamation of idiocies. the poster needs to take a few courses on critical thinking and the philosophy of science, and get over him/herself.Delete
"Your challenge is impossible." As has been stated repeatedly before, it is perfectly possible to provide evidence that climate change can be explained by natural processes if it is in fact true, and even if it is not true. "The scientific method does not accommodate proof." i'm not sure what you mean to say here. "accomodate proof" seems like a silly, nonsensical phrase. "Rather, it is a process in which reasoning and evidence come together to advance understanding." this is true. that is part of the goal of this venue, from what i understand. "Whether this ‘understanding’ is ‘real’ is also by definition improvable." this is a non-sensical statement. i think i know what you mean to say, but it is misguided. you seem to be conflating mathematical proof with epistemic demonstrability. you also seem to be making a reduction to absurdity argument - basically saying "nothing can be proven, therefore, your argument is bad." firstly, no argument is being made. the poster is simply asking for evidence. secondly, if nothing can be proven, then _all_ arguments are invalid, and all conversation is reduced to absurdity, thus the argument defeats itself.Delete
"The best that any who accept your challenge can achieve is to provide evidence and reasoning to support a position, which would itself be subject to the same scrutiny as any other." that is what is being asked for. "To gain traction in the scientific community, for example, that position would then require interest, review, research, testing, and retesting over time. " true, but that is not part of the contest.
"The theory that climate change is man-made has certainly gained support in popular science." this is ad populum - appeal to popularity - it is fallacious and irrelevant. science is about evidence, not popularity. -- "Unfortunately, this has occurred at the expense of recognition for the 'precautionary principle' " this is an assertion made (and a bold one) without supporting evidence. an assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. "...itself a superior decision making instrument." agreed. "Personally, I am neither a ‘man made climate change denier’ nor the polar opposite, and it is exactly because I adhere to scientific method that I am not required to adopt either stance." good for you. though adhering to the scientific method does not make you not required to adopt either stance. you aren't required to begin with. though you are obligated, socially and ethically, to tentatively accept the weight of the evidence, for the benefit of yourself and those around you. you are not entitled to your own facts, anymore than you are entitled to uniformed opinion.
"You, sir, are a troll," this is a personal attack "seeking credibility by attaching a price tag to your nonsense." presumptuous, ad hominem circumstantial, more name calling and childish nonsense "The wording of your challenge demonstrates thinking processes that are at best vague." personal attack and more assertions without evidence or reason "The idea that your judgement would count as final in a scientific debate of this kind serves nicely to illustrate confusion in your perception of self." the confusion lies solely with your own personal reading comprehension, (and apparently, aggresive nature): he will be judging whether to give his money, not whether something is final scientifically. that would require peer review and reproducability, among other things.
"My comments come more as a warning to the readers of this blog than for you." talk about illustrating "confusion in [one's] perception of self"!
Again, deniers are trying to change the challenge in an attempt to get out of a corner. The challenge not about proving AGW is not real, it is about making deniers live up to their own statements. People have a right to make their own decisions on the subject in an informed manner. When deniers fill the debate with lies and deception they are depriving people of the opportunity to do that. If it is impossible to prove AGW is false, then they need to stop saying they can. The goal here is to show to people that deniers are engaged in a campaign of lies, deception and false arguments. Quite frankly, I think it is going very well. Much better than I ever anticipated.Delete
The oceans are heating from the top down, not the bottom up. That is enough to debunk everything you just said.ReplyDelete
Happy jack, the key aspects of my argument are correct, and would stand whether we were talking climate of anything else. You won't see any "proof" presented in this forum, and to participate you have to accept that the word of a single individual means more than the scientific method itself. The gentleman in question could stop wasting valuable time and start reading some scientific articles on this subject instead. In the absence of any academic credentials, however, I can only conclude that the entire "challenge" is a hoax.ReplyDelete
No Mike, I have shown all of your arguments to be specious and fallacious. You can choose to take learn from that and improve your thinking habits, or to not learn from that, and continue to use the same specious arguments (and possibly more) to maintain your personal delusions. Your choice. By the way, you do realize that DOCTOR Keating has a DOCTORATE in science, right?Delete
Not that your arguments would be any less specious or fallacious were that not the case.Delete
I have analysed all daily data from 54 weather stations. The sample was selected so that it is globally representative. The results clearly suggest that there is no man made global warming.ReplyDelete
It is not clear to me how to make a submission
It is not clear how to make a submission?ReplyDelete
Anyway, here it is. Just follow the links indicated and you will find all my results
it contains clear the proof that there is no man made global warming (see final graph at the bottom of all results). All warming and cooling is natural.
PO Box 912887
I will be looking forward to hearing from you.
Your submission has been accepted. Understand that are over two dozen submissions ahead of you, so please be patient. But, be assured I will respond as quickly as I can. Your submission is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Henry's Pool Tables" and you can track my progress atDelete
A more correctly worded version of the so-called challenge is as follows:ReplyDelete
A challenge to those who hold that the AGW hypothesis is not credible: submit a convincing alternative hypothesis to me, supported by scientific evidence and reasoning.
If your hypothesis meets as yet unspecified criteria to convince me that it is the best credible alternative to AGW, I will pay you $30,000.
You should understand that submissions requiring a duration exceeding years/decades of my time to verify (i.e. the more credible) may be rejected from consideration.
I consider myself more capable of judging the virtues of scientific work than the entire process of peer review that currently occurs in the world of science.
One thing you have done is given me a giggle "Christopher Keating". If you're interested in revealing to me the main purpose of the blog, please indicate where I can get in touch. It clearly has nothing to do with climate change! :)
Ah, yet another denier that can't produce to back up his claims. The challenge is simple and straight forward: You said it, now prove it. If it takes years of work to prove your point, then how is it you can claim right now to have scientific evidence that AGW is not real? If you are not making that claim, then the challenge is not for you. But, if you are, you can't hide behind an excuse that it will take years to produce the evidence because you already stated you have it available. Which is it? Just sounds like more denier lies and deception to me.Delete
Anonymous: Your logical fallacy is strawman.Delete
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
a short video on the straw man fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7oDelete
Thanks for the entertaining reading, Christopher! Climate deniers are very funny!ReplyDelete
According to this study (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article), 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by people.
Therefore, it is logical for those of us who are not climate scientists to conclude that climate change is real and is caused by people.
Any other conclusion, such as that thousands of climate scientists have colluded to perpetrate a worldwide fraud or that they are too dumb to interpret the data properly, is nonsensical.
It's ludicrous for someone who is not a climate scientist to even attempt to disprove climate change. It's like someone who has never taken an editing class trying to dispute my use of punctuation (I've been an editor for 30+ years).
Why are people not out there trying to disprove the link between smoking and cancer or between an apple falling to the ground and gravity?
It's because climate change has been politicized. If climate change is indeed real and caused by people, then we might need to change our behaviour, and people can't stand the thought of giving up their gas guzzlers or dialing down their a/c. Furthermore, anything that might cause big business to have to change their ways is seen as a jobs killer. However, having New York, Miami, and LA under water is going to be a major jobs killer as well.
While big business may not be on board with climate change, the insurance industry is! They are being taken to the cleaners!!! Read more about why the insurance industry gets climate change here (hint: it's because they are experts as assessing risk!): http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/28/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
Give it up, deniers. You aren't going to win this argument.
Your comments are valid. However, I believe people have the right to question the science and I encourage them to do it. But, when they question the science, they need to be willing to accept the answer they get, instead of assuming they are smarter than all of the scientists in the world combined.Delete
I believe you mean well. Yes, if we agree that some of the climate scientists fervently believe that AGW is a thing, that it is a present and dangerous thing. And it is a thing that requires us to significantly reduce our electricity consumption.
Yes, you are right; I am afraid of that. Because depending on how far people take this idea that we need to change our behaviors, we could find ourselves going from spending 10 cents/kWh to spending closer to 41 cents/kWh like what Denmark has to contend with; or maybe higher. For me, that would be the difference between spending $50/month and $200/month. I live in a very small, very cheap studio apartment for roughly $300/month... it doesn't get much cheaper than that. I don't pay for TV or a phone landline, I communicate using a really old cell phone because it is cheaper than a smart phone. I *do* have high speed internet for $50/month, But I am not the only one. Wages haven't kept up with inflation; fewer young people are employed these days. Paying an extra $150/month cuts directly into my food budget. I don't smoke, and I very rarely keep beer or liquor around.
Can you not see how increasing the cost of electricity could *significantly* hurt people living from paycheck to paycheck financially? Particularly after this game with tuition prices that university administrators have played nation-wide? Now that most students are in debt by $20,000 on average?
Maybe they just need to to more with less. We could turn off the air conditioning and the heating. Why not? We could call these things luxuries. Something only the rich can enjoy. Everyone knows that we are better off with large swathes of land filled with solar fields, land that cannot be used for farming.
That's just on a personal level! Let's look on a larger scale. Quite a bit of energy must be used to till our fields and for harvesting. Should we stop doing all of this as well?
Some of the ecological fanatics are quite crazy. There are some who would be perfectly content with living in mud huts because it is more "natural". There are a few ecological fanatics who also believe that people are a cancer to the Earth and that we should all disappear.
I am all for developing newer and more advanced forms of electricity that enriches our lives. But, a carbon tax; really? Surely this can't be the best solution. I really don't want us to end up in a Feudalistic-Paleolithic society where the gap between the rich and the poor is the distance between the Earth and the moon. Please don't force us to end up in mud huts, please...
That is an alarmist statement, is a false argument, and does nothing to prove or disprove the reality of man made global warming.Delete
The fact is, you expenses are going up because of climate change. Your utilities, you insurance, your groceries are all just examples of things you now pay more for because of global warming.
The cost of alternative electricity is coming down rapidly, meaning that draconian increases in electric rates are not something that we can realistically expect to see.
Happyjack, I am simply trying to understand why I would present my credible alternative hypothesis to you guys rather than to the scientific community, as is the norm? For the money? What do you and Christopher think you provide that they don't?ReplyDelete
If you have a scientifically valid argument with evidence and data to support it, then you absolutely should present it to the scientific community.Delete
So what is it you think you can offer as an individual? You are clearly confident in your "screening" abilities, but you must appreciate that the best alternative hypotheses out there will not be black and white, just as the AGW hypothesis isn't. What objective means will you use to determine the most credible alternative hypothesis ?Delete
Unfortunately you're both misguided.Delete
So maybe let Chris respond to my question.Delete
For Anonymous, July 7 at 2:41 PM:Delete
PS - my argument is not strawman, it is a genuine rewording of the challenge and doesn't misrepresent anythingReplyDelete
Your argument is _egregiously_ straw man. I'm saying this for _your_ benefit, not others. To other people I'm sure that once I presented the definition of straw man it became obvious enough. Bear in mind that when we make fallacies it's rarely deliberate - we usually are not consciously aware of them. They are common mistakes precisely because it is easy to persuade ourselves of their validity. It takes effort, self-reflection, humbleness, and courage to recognize and acknowledge them. http://ictnz.com/Thinking%20Pages/thinkerattitudes.htmDelete
So which aspects do you feel I have misrepresented?ReplyDelete
Also, feel free to elaborate on your understanding of conscious and unconscious awareness, I already suspect it will be entertaining!Delete
OK - now try "conscious awareness" - the two word together. We'll move onto "unconscious awareness" as a second stepDelete
All of them. You would gain more for yourself by making a sincere effort to look over what you wrote sentence by sentence and apply rigorous standards of intellectual honesty.Delete
(feel free to google "intellectual honesty")
If after a sincere concerted effort you can't find all of your distortions, I will spell them out for you.
But let me reiterate: you will benefit much more from it if you make a sincere effort yourself.
Global warming is not man made and has nothing to do with emissions and CO2.ReplyDelete
This is proven in the following booklet: Joachim Seifert, Das Ende der globalen Erwärmung, Berechnung des Klimawandels (2010). Available from the German
Amazon.de, ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4. All explanations, calculations and over 30 graphs are understandable to the common man.
Climate change and "the end of global warming" depends on the annual changes
of the Earth orbit around the Sun, which produced global warming until the year 2000 and now producing a plateau, which will fall into a temperature descend thereafter.
"The end of global warming" means that we are on the top temperature plateau from where global temps can NEVER go higher. The booklet remains unrefuted, because it is unrefutable, and solely based on hard facts, no simulations, no models,no probability assumptions..... Further proof for the analysis is given for the past 20,000 years in htttp://www.eu/climate_papers.html
JS (climate author)