14 ms·

Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change

37 points by stevekinney 12y ago

hartator 12y ago
The article has a weird tone. Why is he being so agressive against people who think the opposite of him? I mean if you are tolerant against people whose religion place the women in a submission role and restrain to nothing individual rights, you can be also tolerant to people who think the earth is not warming up.
- alexkiritz 12y ago
  Who ever agreed to be tolerant of fascist religions?
- cushychicken 12y ago
  I'll wager a guess that it's because the stakes of being wrong on climate change are pretty high.
  - refurb 12y ago
    Isn't the stakes of being wrong in the other direction (that global warming isn't happening) just as high? Imagine if we spend billions/trillions of dollars trying to capture CO2, reduce oil consumption, etc. and it turns out CO2 wasn't the cause of global warming. That money could have done a lot of good if spent in other ways (i.e. lift millions of people out of poverty).
    - cushychicken 12y ago
      So we end up spending billions/trillions of dollars reducing consumption of nonrenewable resources and developing cleaner technology. What a waste.
- pizza234 12y ago
  Well, it's more complicated than "thinking the opposite"; it's more along the lines of "thinking the opposite of what hurts the wallet". Religion is a correct analogy. If in a certain culture, women are submitted, that doesn't hurt people outside it. People globally feels - and is, actually - threatened by global warming, so it's understandable to have ahem heat directed to people with power and without sense of collaboration (and I'm using an euphemism here), which is the current requirement for working out the problem.
- waps 12y ago
  Somehow that doesn't seem to be possible. The entire question is a fraud of course : the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. While that does satisfy some standards used in science, no scientist in his right mind would refer to that as "proven", because it isn't. So here's my version : 1) There is no argument from either maths, or even a simulation from first principles (NOT measured data and statistics and correlations) that shows a scenario like global warming. 2) principle of the excluded third ("tertium non datur") was an accepted standard in logic before Christ was born. It states that any statement that cannot be proven from first principles is disproved just by that fact (NOT wrong, but that wasn't asked) Ergo, climate science disproved. Or at least, there is no known proof. There is loads and loads of statistical correlations indicating it exists, but there is no correct argument from first principles known, which is what I'd require to say "proof". It is overwhelmingly likely (well I haven't checked, but I believe them) that it exists, but not proven. Now please keep in mind what I am and am not claiming here before you vilify me. I am claiming that climate science is very far from satisfying the standard used in exact sciences that is referred to when scientists use the word "proof". Obviously I am not claiming that global warming will reverse or is just a mistake or whatever. The graph has been rising pretty constantly for 150 years or so, and yes, it absolutely does not look like it will reverse. This is however very far from having an explanation from first principles for climate change.
  - leephillips 12y ago
    While the idea of "proof" here is just a distraction, we have vastly more than merely "statistical correlations". We know that we've significantly increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and we have a pretty good idea of what that does to a climate: "Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect." From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.
- rossjudson 12y ago
  Because they don't just "think" the opposite of him; they claim that they have a scientific basis for their position. It's like the difference between hearing someone committed a crime, and watching them commit it (and testifying about it). We certainly tolerate people who think unicorns fly out of pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, but we don't let them make decisions that will affect the health and well-being of a significant part of the planet's population.
  - belovedeagle 12y ago
    This is the very definition of dogmatism. You literally just claimed that thinking differently is okay, as long as it's not your sacred cow which is getting involved in the discussion. Let me help you understand what this sounds like: "Because they don't just 'think' that evolution is real; they claim that the bible isn't the inspired Word of God!" That's absolutely no different than what you just wrote: science is your "inspired Word" about which no one can disagree, even if they're allowed to disagree about everything else.
- Guthur 12y ago
  Or tolerant of a society that uses women to sell cars, films, magazines. Objectifies them to the point where they are mere symbols of sexual desire. Or we could tolerate a society where your private correspondences will be read where your home will be invaded and your every move monitored. Or a society which takes your wealth and funds a bloated military industrial complex, banking system, or anyone else with a large enough lobby group. But it's the internet, spouting assertions from positions of ignorance is common place.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  "Being tolerant" of a person's views doesn't entail "being respectful of" them, nor does it imply one must simply abide their expression in silence. Here's a counter-question: why is it that when people who have extraordinary or extraordinarily extreme opinions are questioned or challenged there seems to almost always be an attempt to deflect the discussion toward one revolving around respect and tolerance instead of the merits of the issue involved? (That's kind of a rhetorical question, really--my long and varied experience on topics of this sort has led me to one conclusion if nothing else, and that is this: people who hold such views and attempt such deflection aren't interested in honest dialog.)
  - talmand 12y ago
    I usually see the opposite, the people with extreme opinions are often told their intolerance doesn't have to be tolerated. Often times this bothers me because the people who choose not to tolerate the intolerable are the ones who seem not interested in honest dialogue. My reasoning is because most often they are the people who also get to label what is considered intolerance and extreme opinions. Then, the use of such labels is the reason to dismiss the opposing viewpoint without honest dialogue. If you take an objective viewpoint of common debates on the news and whatnot, you'll see it.
    - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
      Nah; you're just repeating the same "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" idea I wrote about. It has nothing to do with objectivity--that's your own subjective opinion and projection.
      - talmand 12y ago
        I see your mistake, but I was not referring to the argument that you describe. Which I would agree is a rather silly argument to make. I'm speaking of situations where the opposing viewpoint is labeled as intolerant before the label-er even knows what the opposing viewpoint is or is mistaken of what the opposing viewpoint is; usually from emotional reactions. In those instances it is rather easy to remain objective enough to see what's going on. I would believe you provided an example of what I'm describing. You labeled me as a "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" person before you knew whether I believed that or not.
facepalm 12y ago
Can you really prove something by the scientific method? Maybe it would be better to say "show a likelihood of at least x%"?
- pizza234 12y ago
  True. It's a kind of "intellectual" PR stunt. Hopefully, at least it will get rid of the cheap arguments on the opposite side.
  - vixin 12y ago
    And presumably ignore cheap tricks and fiddled data on the the other opposite side - a comment not improper given your dismissive tone.
  - rockstartower 12y ago
    my cheap argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif1NwcUgMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif1NwcUgMU
- rossjudson 12y ago
  Yes. You can prove that water boils when you add enough heat. You are making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
  - Scienz 12y ago
    If you do it scientifically, meaning by experimentation, you've really only shown that in all observed cases water boils when you add enough heat. It's an inductive process, which unlike deduction is never logically valid - excluding mathematical induction which is really more like deduction, since you can actually test all possible cases that way. It is a philosophical issue, but epistemology is the basis of the validity of science.
  - msandford 12y ago
    No, incorrect. In science nothing is ever REALLY proven. But there are standards by which scientists agree that a certain amount of evidence will be accepted as "proof". At least for a while. Where everyone understand that it could always be overturned by some evidence to the contrary. In particle physics it takes five sigma to make a claim. In other fields, often less. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/the-particle-proof-1150/ http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/the-particle-proof-1150/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_.22scientific_proof.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability For example everyone knew that water boiled once it got hot enough. Then someone invented a pressure vessel and wasn't able to boil water over a fire because as the pressure rose, so did the boiling point. And thus a thing that everyone knew was true for thousands of years wasn't quite anymore.
antonwinter 12y ago
does that mean that lack of scientific proof means it is real? is that what they are trying to get at?
crdoconnor 12y ago
Let's flip this: 1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can demonstrate, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change IS occurring; 2. There is no entry fee; 3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter; 4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first; 5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point. Obviously not hard to see how a global warming denier could get away with not paying anybody. Does anybody seriously believe that would prove anything either?
- bfwi 12y ago
  Exactly. This is pointless.
  - shankysingh 12y ago
    except its a good "publicity" strategy in right direction but agreed the method is little more than a moot point.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  I had a similar thought. But I take the point more seriously. To be clear, given the current data it's very likely that the climate is warming. But there are no empirical data that show we can do anything about it. A better contest in response to this post would be awarding $10,000 for proof that any plan (cap-and-trade bill X, global carbon tax of Y%) would be a net benefit over a given period of time (50 years, a century?). This contest wouldn't prove anything either, but it does demonstrate something more profound about the limits of empirical decision making.
- asgard1024 12y ago
  OK, challenge accepted. :-) I am submitting this: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence Please provide the comments why the evidence failed to prove the point.
  - stronglikedan 12y ago
7952 12y ago
It is well understood that the atmosphere is a highly chaotic system. Small changes can have dramatic impact. It is completely inconceivable that six billion humans have had no impact on weather and climate. Arguing about the exact consequences of that is a complete waste of time. Humans have the ability to influence the environment and we need to do that in an educated way. Fixating on climate science distracts from more tangible environmental issues that need to be addressed.
eglover 12y ago
97% consensus? Right away I'm calling bullshit. I think this only proves how immature the academic world tends to be and may point to a bigger problem.
- headShrinker 12y ago
  There are plenty of areas to pick apart this article and motivations behind it. 97% consensus isn't one of them. Denial, is old and dead amongst the well informed. Join us.
  - msandford 12y ago
    That kind of consensus is actually worrying to me. It makes it seem like there is very little effort going into ensuring that all the research the climate scientists are doing doesn't have errors. In other words, in the echo chamber there are no critics. Kinda like the dumb ideas that occasionally come out of SF because nobody there knows about the real problems that real people have, they just know about the trivial problems that they as single dudes in SF have.
    - headShrinker 12y ago
      It's important to debate and open old ideas, that's true. But as far as consensus and the News, false debate is extremely damaging. This is a false debate. Let rejection of consensus exist where an idea is unexplored or where there is actually debate.
    - DCKing 12y ago
      It's quite the same as the fact there are incredibly few biologists who think that evolution is false. The debate is simply not worth having, even though a large number of uninformed people still don't accept it.
      - paulhauggis 12y ago
        500+ years ago, very few scientists of that day thought the world was round. A scientist should be able to study the other side without threat of being fired or completely losing their career. Your viewpoint is as close-minded as many religions.
tedunangst 12y ago
It seems longbets.org would be a more appropriate arena. "The average temperature of the earth will (not) rise by more than X degrees in the next twenty years."
- imacomputer2 12y ago
  That would be an excellent bet for the person betting that the temperature will increase. However, it doesn't prove that human actions are causing it. I think most deniers do believe that the climate is changing - even that the temps are going up. The problem is that causation is hard to measure. I'm not a scientist, but I think theories explain causes, and you can't directly measure a theory, only the observations that support it. So, maybe a bet that includes more measurements (green house gas emissions, etc.) would be needed to prove man-made global warming. The outcome of the total of those bets would either support or not support the theory. But that might be a lot of bets and a mixed result could complicate things.
- Andys 12y ago
  Not really, because you'd have to agree on how to measure average temperature of the earth.
unabridged 12y ago
This is why I'm a skeptic, change my mind: Let's say we have 150 years of accurate temperature data, and it shows an increase of a few degrees. What is the standard deviation in global temperature for 150 year periods for the last 100K or 1M years? How do we know what is significant change? Any data gathered from models (ice core, tree rings, ...) just doesn't have the resolution to answer these questions.
- Malarkey73 12y ago
  Lets say we have my blood alcohol level measured in the last 5 mins. It's 0.2g/dL. Whats my blood alcohol level throughout my lifetime though - i reckon it goes up and down quite a bit? How do i know I'm drunk or that it was caused by this keg I just drank? Any data gathered from physiological models I will just arbitrarily ignore... just because...[waves hands]
  - kbd 12y ago
    That's a terrible analogy. Blood alcohol level only rises upon consumption of alcohol. Temperature rises and falls due to tons of external (not fully understood) factors.
    - unabridged 12y ago
      Not to mention BAC has a known baseline of 0. What is the known baseline for mean global surface temperature? Why is 1951-1980 a good choice for a base period?
    - Malarkey73 12y ago
      well I was trying to be funny.. but blood alcohol does indeed have a physical model that relates consumption to levels in the blood. And atmospheric temperature has a simple physical model that relates it to C02 levels. And I use the term "simple" deliberately because whilst the short term fluctuations of climate are indeed vey complex - on geological time we have always seen rising temperatures with rising CO2 and have a simple compelling atmospheric model to explain it. Without arguing over the resolution of the historical scientific data or how fast global warming will happen - it seems inevitable that with the current CO2 levels it will happen.
msandford 12y ago
I was just commenting to my girlfriend the other day after the John Oliver "Statistically Accurate Climate Science Debate" that I would love to see the US government spend $100mm or $1b or $10b (say over 5 years) on grants to try and disprove climate change. Now obviously there might be some issues ensuring that you get researchers who want to make a real go of trying to disprove it rather than erect straw men and tear them down. But that's probably solvable. Yes in many respects it would be a big waste of money, but after you poke a million little holes in climate change they will be fixed. And that will strengthen our understanding of the climate and in all likelihood substantially bolster the claim that climate change is real and man-made. And if it takes $100mm or $1b or even $10b worth of very public extra research to really convince people it would be worth it. The US Global Change Research Program's budget is $2.6b annually so $20mm per year is a joke, $200mm a year is a bit substantial and $2b per year might actually be a reasonable amount. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/14/presidents-2013-budget-requests-6-percent-increase-for-usgcrp/ http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/14/presidents-201... Again I realize that for many people it would be a "waste" of money. But if it was publicized properly (and I do realize that's a big IF) it could go a long way towards garnering the public support necessary to do some economically difficult things. When politicians are happy to kick the can down the road every couple of years it's pretty tough for the public to understand why this is an issue that can't be kicked as well. EDIT: I also realize it's stupid to waste taxpayer money, something I'm vhemently against. But while I'm dreaming here, let's suppose that the money is taken from the military budget for the duration of the grant period.
- glenra 12y ago
  In context, that John Oliver debate segment was dumb. They took a perfectly reasonable Gallop poll result - that 1 in 4 Americans think the threat of climate change has been exaggerated - and rhetorically pretended the claim being made was that climate change "isn't real" or "doesn't exist". But establishing that a threat exists is quite a lot different from establishing whether it's being overestimated or underestimated in the media, so the whole segment was a non sequitur - it didn't respond in any way at all to the news article it was allegedly answering. My guess is that they had Bill Nye, wanted to do this gag, couldn't come up with any valid reason to do it based on any actual news stories, then said "heck, let's do it anyway; maybe nobody will notice!" (As a side note, if you look into how the claims of "97% agreement" were determined, you'll find that most "skeptics" would also be in the 97%. It's pure propaganda at this point to claim 97% support for some vague "the consensus" without actually specifying what exactly "the consensus" they agree to IS. The original value of "the consensus" seems to have been: (a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (b) it's gotten warmer recently, (c) human activity has had a significant warming effect, where both the nature of the "human activity" and the meaning of "significant" are usually left vague and unstated. Oh, and to get a number as high as "97%" what gets measured is usually not the level of agreement among "scientists" but rather among a tiny subset, such as "those climate scientists who publish the most in the field".)
dirktheman 12y ago
If I put 20 mice in a container, together with a toy car, measure the temperature in the container for 2 months and write a report about my findings, would that count as scientific proof? Because by definition, scientific proof does not result in 'true' or 'false', right? According to Socrates it's impossible to disprove anything. That's purely a philosophical theory, but in this case it applies pretty well. You can't prove manmade global warming is NOT occuring because, in theory, the global warming that we're seeing (note that the definition of 'global warming' isn't set in stone, too) could be caused by other factors. So, proving something isn't possible is impossible, and to top that this person runs a blog on global warming skepticism. I have the feeling he/she could be somewhat biased... Just to be clear: I'm not debating man-made global warming. It's just that these kind of challenges bug me. Side note: what is 'scientifically proven' anyway? I wrote a thesis on propaganda, and discovered (among other things) that when you say something is 'scientifically proven' most people stop questioning your claim.
triangleman 12y ago
Considering that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is not falsifiable in the first place (a key tenet of the scientific method), this is a strange offer indeed. There may be a purported "consensus" on climate change but that does not make it scientific: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes-but-what-do-we-mean-by-consensus/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nice1 12y ago
Perhaps someone will offer a prize for disproving the existence of angels.
ZenPro 12y ago
Another stunning HN thread where a subset of posters have decided they know more about climate change than people dedicating their lives to the study of climate change. Since so many of you are wagering or believing let me just toss out what I believe. I believe that credible and respected climate change scientists have forgotten more than you could ever know about the subject. Climate Change deniers are a joke and a menace and are tied neck and neck with creationists for the moron awards.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  So because I'm not an expert, I should have no opinion on the subject? Experts make mistakes all the time. They are just people, after all. I look at the tech world (which I know very well) and "experts" are wrong all the time. I can't imagine it being much different in other fields. I see people here on HN making comments about the economy. Should all of these opinions be ignored because they aren't experts? Look at the guy that discovered bacteria: The experts of his time shunned him and he died in an insane asylum. Scientists pretty much lose their career overnight if they have any study or research on non man-made climate change. How can we really have an honest debate when this kind of behavior is going on?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    People are paid money to sow uncertainty about climate science. These tactics are the same ones used by tobacco companies. The tactics are the same and many of the scientists are the same. That's not an honest debate. The reason people don't engage with you has nothing to do with whether you're an expert or not. It's because people who deny climate change often grab a snippet of science, out of context, and that's been given a spin by deniers. Then, rather than learning why that bit is flawed or what the context is they'll just throw it into a discussion and demand that it is explained. And then they'll grab another bit. And another bit. Eventually it's easier to regard this as trolling (which it is - concern trolling) and treat appropriately (by stopping feeding the trolls).
peter303 12y ago
Considering my classmates the Koch brothers have given $10Ms to various organizations with the same goal, this is small potatoes.
pessimizer 12y ago
A lot of crackpots think that they already have. To make this a good-faith offer, it might be good to google all of the major theories from the denialist side and explain in black-and-white terms why they would or would not qualify for the prize. Otherwise, it's just asking somebody to volunteer to be your punching bag for free.
logfromblammo 12y ago
Well, let's just rough out the experiment, shall we? First, we need to establish that human activity can change the climate. For the sake of argument, let's try rainfall in the Sonora Desert. What we could do is to burrow an underground canal from the Gulf of California into Laguna Salada, and from there to the Salton Sink. This would establish shallow, inland, saltwater seas upwind of the desert, in a very sunny area, as a source of atmospheric humidity. Evaporation would be further encouraged with sea salt manufacturing beds and Salicornia bigelovii plantations. (It would also displace thousands of people whose homes would now be underwater, but let's handwave that aside for now.) We then erect solar-powered ionization towers downwind of the new seas, to stimulate cloud formation via charged particles of dust. Those clouds will tend to blow east over the desert and rain out. To extend the rainfall further east, we simply plant dry-tolerant plants--such as sorghum, lucern, and field pea--in the newly wet areas, to recycle moisture back into the air via transpiration. Results of the experiment will compare weather patterns in Yuma and Mexicali before and after the megaproject. And then, after spending (optimistically) $20 billion on the subterranean saltwater tunnels, and $100 million on the cloud seeders, we can collect our $10000. Yay! In comparison to what it would cost to test experimentally a hypothesis that states the entirety of global human economic activity is influencing weather patterns, you will have to spend an amount capable of simulating a portion of the global human economy towards a directed experimental purpose. $10000 isn't even a round-off error. You would be better off buying up unproductive arid land and leasing it to cattle ranchers as semi-arid grazing land afterward.
mdip 12y ago
Let's just take this a piece at a time. ...there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing and exacerbating climate change... Ignoring the lack of citation, why is it necessary to resort to band-wagon style marketing? ...the only reason so many scientists agree on climate change being a thing is because all the ones who disagree are being “censored” or something... I don't think that most of us who are skeptical about climate change believe that scientists are being censored as a matter of scientific conspiracy. It happens that the "fix" for man-made climate change also aligns well with a particular political party. Unfortunately, this results in people who are equally ignorant about the science involved supporting climate change simply because they support the economic policies that would be enacted to "reverse" climate change. ...These people often believe that there is actual scientific evidence disproving climate change. There, of course, is not. Isn't that the same argument made by academics when religious observers attempt to reason faith against evidence? And isn't the author now asking for us to "prove via the scientific method" something that would be impossible to do? Perhaps that's the point? Who wants to lose $10,000 of their own money? I know nothing about this guy except what I've read in this one post, but I feel that the author is being intellectually dishonest and with his "prize" and, instead, is attempting to argue his point via propaganda.
bprieto 12y ago
Disproving climate change is virtually impossible. Every scientist agree that climate changes, it has done so in the past, will do in the future and is doing it in the present. That is not an interesting question. The interesting questions are: - Is climate changing in a different way (faster, for example) than it has done in the past? - Do humans have anything to do with it? Is it caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2? - Will this change be negative? - If the change is negative (be it man-made or not), can we stop it? - If we can stop this climate change, how much will it cost? Will this money better spent stopping climate or is a better strategy to adapt to this change? - Do we understand climate physics well enough to create models that can predict the climate of the future? This last question is important, because if we can not produce a model that can predict the future well enough, all the other questions are irrelevant. And it seems that predictions of the models and reality are showing quite significant discrepancies: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/ http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-... So it's not black or white, yes or no, good or bad. As usually it is in science. Name-calling, appealing to consensus, arguments of authority… those are never the result of science at work.

37 points by stevekinney 12y ago

The article has a weird tone. Why is he being so agressive against people who think the opposite of him? I mean if you are tolerant against people whose religion place the women in a submission role and restrain to nothing individual rights, you can be also tolerant to people who think the earth is not warming up.

alexkiritz 12y ago
Who ever agreed to be tolerant of fascist religions?
cushychicken 12y ago
I'll wager a guess that it's because the stakes of being wrong on climate change are pretty high.
- refurb 12y ago
  Isn't the stakes of being wrong in the other direction (that global warming isn't happening) just as high? Imagine if we spend billions/trillions of dollars trying to capture CO2, reduce oil consumption, etc. and it turns out CO2 wasn't the cause of global warming. That money could have done a lot of good if spent in other ways (i.e. lift millions of people out of poverty).
  - cushychicken 12y ago
    So we end up spending billions/trillions of dollars reducing consumption of nonrenewable resources and developing cleaner technology. What a waste.
pizza234 12y ago
Well, it's more complicated than "thinking the opposite"; it's more along the lines of "thinking the opposite of what hurts the wallet". Religion is a correct analogy. If in a certain culture, women are submitted, that doesn't hurt people outside it. People globally feels - and is, actually - threatened by global warming, so it's understandable to have ahem heat directed to people with power and without sense of collaboration (and I'm using an euphemism here), which is the current requirement for working out the problem.
waps 12y ago
Somehow that doesn't seem to be possible. The entire question is a fraud of course : the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. While that does satisfy some standards used in science, no scientist in his right mind would refer to that as "proven", because it isn't. So here's my version : 1) There is no argument from either maths, or even a simulation from first principles (NOT measured data and statistics and correlations) that shows a scenario like global warming. 2) principle of the excluded third ("tertium non datur") was an accepted standard in logic before Christ was born. It states that any statement that cannot be proven from first principles is disproved just by that fact (NOT wrong, but that wasn't asked) Ergo, climate science disproved. Or at least, there is no known proof. There is loads and loads of statistical correlations indicating it exists, but there is no correct argument from first principles known, which is what I'd require to say "proof". It is overwhelmingly likely (well I haven't checked, but I believe them) that it exists, but not proven. Now please keep in mind what I am and am not claiming here before you vilify me. I am claiming that climate science is very far from satisfying the standard used in exact sciences that is referred to when scientists use the word "proof". Obviously I am not claiming that global warming will reverse or is just a mistake or whatever. The graph has been rising pretty constantly for 150 years or so, and yes, it absolutely does not look like it will reverse. This is however very far from having an explanation from first principles for climate change.
- leephillips 12y ago
  While the idea of "proof" here is just a distraction, we have vastly more than merely "statistical correlations". We know that we've significantly increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and we have a pretty good idea of what that does to a climate: "Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect." From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.
rossjudson 12y ago
Because they don't just "think" the opposite of him; they claim that they have a scientific basis for their position. It's like the difference between hearing someone committed a crime, and watching them commit it (and testifying about it). We certainly tolerate people who think unicorns fly out of pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, but we don't let them make decisions that will affect the health and well-being of a significant part of the planet's population.
- belovedeagle 12y ago
  This is the very definition of dogmatism. You literally just claimed that thinking differently is okay, as long as it's not your sacred cow which is getting involved in the discussion. Let me help you understand what this sounds like: "Because they don't just 'think' that evolution is real; they claim that the bible isn't the inspired Word of God!" That's absolutely no different than what you just wrote: science is your "inspired Word" about which no one can disagree, even if they're allowed to disagree about everything else.
Guthur 12y ago
Or tolerant of a society that uses women to sell cars, films, magazines. Objectifies them to the point where they are mere symbols of sexual desire. Or we could tolerate a society where your private correspondences will be read where your home will be invaded and your every move monitored. Or a society which takes your wealth and funds a bloated military industrial complex, banking system, or anyone else with a large enough lobby group. But it's the internet, spouting assertions from positions of ignorance is common place.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
"Being tolerant" of a person's views doesn't entail "being respectful of" them, nor does it imply one must simply abide their expression in silence. Here's a counter-question: why is it that when people who have extraordinary or extraordinarily extreme opinions are questioned or challenged there seems to almost always be an attempt to deflect the discussion toward one revolving around respect and tolerance instead of the merits of the issue involved? (That's kind of a rhetorical question, really--my long and varied experience on topics of this sort has led me to one conclusion if nothing else, and that is this: people who hold such views and attempt such deflection aren't interested in honest dialog.)
- talmand 12y ago
  I usually see the opposite, the people with extreme opinions are often told their intolerance doesn't have to be tolerated. Often times this bothers me because the people who choose not to tolerate the intolerable are the ones who seem not interested in honest dialogue. My reasoning is because most often they are the people who also get to label what is considered intolerance and extreme opinions. Then, the use of such labels is the reason to dismiss the opposing viewpoint without honest dialogue. If you take an objective viewpoint of common debates on the news and whatnot, you'll see it.
  - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    Nah; you're just repeating the same "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" idea I wrote about. It has nothing to do with objectivity--that's your own subjective opinion and projection.
    - talmand 12y ago
      I see your mistake, but I was not referring to the argument that you describe. Which I would agree is a rather silly argument to make. I'm speaking of situations where the opposing viewpoint is labeled as intolerant before the label-er even knows what the opposing viewpoint is or is mistaken of what the opposing viewpoint is; usually from emotional reactions. In those instances it is rather easy to remain objective enough to see what's going on. I would believe you provided an example of what I'm describing. You labeled me as a "tolerance means tolerance of every single idea in every context" person before you knew whether I believed that or not.

facepalm 12y ago

Can you really prove something by the scientific method? Maybe it would be better to say "show a likelihood of at least x%"?

pizza234 12y ago
True. It's a kind of "intellectual" PR stunt. Hopefully, at least it will get rid of the cheap arguments on the opposite side.
- vixin 12y ago
  And presumably ignore cheap tricks and fiddled data on the the other opposite side - a comment not improper given your dismissive tone.
- rockstartower 12y ago
  my cheap argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif1NwcUgMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif1NwcUgMU
rossjudson 12y ago
Yes. You can prove that water boils when you add enough heat. You are making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
- Scienz 12y ago
  If you do it scientifically, meaning by experimentation, you've really only shown that in all observed cases water boils when you add enough heat. It's an inductive process, which unlike deduction is never logically valid - excluding mathematical induction which is really more like deduction, since you can actually test all possible cases that way. It is a philosophical issue, but epistemology is the basis of the validity of science.
- msandford 12y ago
  No, incorrect. In science nothing is ever REALLY proven. But there are standards by which scientists agree that a certain amount of evidence will be accepted as "proof". At least for a while. Where everyone understand that it could always be overturned by some evidence to the contrary. In particle physics it takes five sigma to make a claim. In other fields, often less. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/the-particle-proof-1150/ http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/the-particle-proof-1150/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_.22scientific_proof.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability For example everyone knew that water boiled once it got hot enough. Then someone invented a pressure vessel and wasn't able to boil water over a fire because as the pressure rose, so did the boiling point. And thus a thing that everyone knew was true for thousands of years wasn't quite anymore.

antonwinter 12y ago

does that mean that lack of scientific proof means it is real? is that what they are trying to get at?

crdoconnor 12y ago

Let's flip this: 1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can demonstrate, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change IS occurring; 2. There is no entry fee; 3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter; 4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first; 5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point. Obviously not hard to see how a global warming denier could get away with not paying anybody. Does anybody seriously believe that would prove anything either?

bfwi 12y ago
Exactly. This is pointless.
- shankysingh 12y ago
  except its a good "publicity" strategy in right direction but agreed the method is little more than a moot point.
humanrebar 12y ago
I had a similar thought. But I take the point more seriously. To be clear, given the current data it's very likely that the climate is warming. But there are no empirical data that show we can do anything about it. A better contest in response to this post would be awarding $10,000 for proof that any plan (cap-and-trade bill X, global carbon tax of Y%) would be a net benefit over a given period of time (50 years, a century?). This contest wouldn't prove anything either, but it does demonstrate something more profound about the limits of empirical decision making.
asgard1024 12y ago
OK, challenge accepted. :-) I am submitting this: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence Please provide the comments why the evidence failed to prove the point.
- stronglikedan 12y ago

7952 12y ago

It is well understood that the atmosphere is a highly chaotic system. Small changes can have dramatic impact. It is completely inconceivable that six billion humans have had no impact on weather and climate. Arguing about the exact consequences of that is a complete waste of time. Humans have the ability to influence the environment and we need to do that in an educated way. Fixating on climate science distracts from more tangible environmental issues that need to be addressed.

eglover 12y ago

97% consensus? Right away I'm calling bullshit. I think this only proves how immature the academic world tends to be and may point to a bigger problem.

headShrinker 12y ago
There are plenty of areas to pick apart this article and motivations behind it. 97% consensus isn't one of them. Denial, is old and dead amongst the well informed. Join us.
- msandford 12y ago
  That kind of consensus is actually worrying to me. It makes it seem like there is very little effort going into ensuring that all the research the climate scientists are doing doesn't have errors. In other words, in the echo chamber there are no critics. Kinda like the dumb ideas that occasionally come out of SF because nobody there knows about the real problems that real people have, they just know about the trivial problems that they as single dudes in SF have.
  - headShrinker 12y ago
    It's important to debate and open old ideas, that's true. But as far as consensus and the News, false debate is extremely damaging. This is a false debate. Let rejection of consensus exist where an idea is unexplored or where there is actually debate.
  - DCKing 12y ago
    It's quite the same as the fact there are incredibly few biologists who think that evolution is false. The debate is simply not worth having, even though a large number of uninformed people still don't accept it.
    - paulhauggis 12y ago
      500+ years ago, very few scientists of that day thought the world was round. A scientist should be able to study the other side without threat of being fired or completely losing their career. Your viewpoint is as close-minded as many religions.

tedunangst 12y ago

It seems longbets.org would be a more appropriate arena. "The average temperature of the earth will (not) rise by more than X degrees in the next twenty years."

imacomputer2 12y ago
That would be an excellent bet for the person betting that the temperature will increase. However, it doesn't prove that human actions are causing it. I think most deniers do believe that the climate is changing - even that the temps are going up. The problem is that causation is hard to measure. I'm not a scientist, but I think theories explain causes, and you can't directly measure a theory, only the observations that support it. So, maybe a bet that includes more measurements (green house gas emissions, etc.) would be needed to prove man-made global warming. The outcome of the total of those bets would either support or not support the theory. But that might be a lot of bets and a mixed result could complicate things.
Andys 12y ago
Not really, because you'd have to agree on how to measure average temperature of the earth.

unabridged 12y ago

This is why I'm a skeptic, change my mind: Let's say we have 150 years of accurate temperature data, and it shows an increase of a few degrees. What is the standard deviation in global temperature for 150 year periods for the last 100K or 1M years? How do we know what is significant change? Any data gathered from models (ice core, tree rings, ...) just doesn't have the resolution to answer these questions.

Malarkey73 12y ago
Lets say we have my blood alcohol level measured in the last 5 mins. It's 0.2g/dL. Whats my blood alcohol level throughout my lifetime though - i reckon it goes up and down quite a bit? How do i know I'm drunk or that it was caused by this keg I just drank? Any data gathered from physiological models I will just arbitrarily ignore... just because...[waves hands]
- kbd 12y ago
  That's a terrible analogy. Blood alcohol level only rises upon consumption of alcohol. Temperature rises and falls due to tons of external (not fully understood) factors.
  - unabridged 12y ago
    Not to mention BAC has a known baseline of 0. What is the known baseline for mean global surface temperature? Why is 1951-1980 a good choice for a base period?
  - Malarkey73 12y ago
    well I was trying to be funny.. but blood alcohol does indeed have a physical model that relates consumption to levels in the blood. And atmospheric temperature has a simple physical model that relates it to C02 levels. And I use the term "simple" deliberately because whilst the short term fluctuations of climate are indeed vey complex - on geological time we have always seen rising temperatures with rising CO2 and have a simple compelling atmospheric model to explain it. Without arguing over the resolution of the historical scientific data or how fast global warming will happen - it seems inevitable that with the current CO2 levels it will happen.

msandford 12y ago

I was just commenting to my girlfriend the other day after the John Oliver "Statistically Accurate Climate Science Debate" that I would love to see the US government spend $100mm or $1b or $10b (say over 5 years) on grants to try and disprove climate change. Now obviously there might be some issues ensuring that you get researchers who want to make a real go of trying to disprove it rather than erect straw men and tear them down. But that's probably solvable. Yes in many respects it would be a big waste of money, but after you poke a million little holes in climate change they will be fixed. And that will strengthen our understanding of the climate and in all likelihood substantially bolster the claim that climate change is real and man-made. And if it takes $100mm or $1b or even $10b worth of very public extra research to really convince people it would be worth it. The US Global Change Research Program's budget is $2.6b annually so $20mm per year is a joke, $200mm a year is a bit substantial and $2b per year might actually be a reasonable amount. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/14/presidents-2013-budget-requests-6-percent-increase-for-usgcrp/ http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/14/presidents-201... Again I realize that for many people it would be a "waste" of money. But if it was publicized properly (and I do realize that's a big IF) it could go a long way towards garnering the public support necessary to do some economically difficult things. When politicians are happy to kick the can down the road every couple of years it's pretty tough for the public to understand why this is an issue that can't be kicked as well. EDIT: I also realize it's stupid to waste taxpayer money, something I'm vhemently against. But while I'm dreaming here, let's suppose that the money is taken from the military budget for the duration of the grant period.

glenra 12y ago
In context, that John Oliver debate segment was dumb. They took a perfectly reasonable Gallop poll result - that 1 in 4 Americans think the threat of climate change has been exaggerated - and rhetorically pretended the claim being made was that climate change "isn't real" or "doesn't exist". But establishing that a threat exists is quite a lot different from establishing whether it's being overestimated or underestimated in the media, so the whole segment was a non sequitur - it didn't respond in any way at all to the news article it was allegedly answering. My guess is that they had Bill Nye, wanted to do this gag, couldn't come up with any valid reason to do it based on any actual news stories, then said "heck, let's do it anyway; maybe nobody will notice!" (As a side note, if you look into how the claims of "97% agreement" were determined, you'll find that most "skeptics" would also be in the 97%. It's pure propaganda at this point to claim 97% support for some vague "the consensus" without actually specifying what exactly "the consensus" they agree to IS. The original value of "the consensus" seems to have been: (a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (b) it's gotten warmer recently, (c) human activity has had a significant warming effect, where both the nature of the "human activity" and the meaning of "significant" are usually left vague and unstated. Oh, and to get a number as high as "97%" what gets measured is usually not the level of agreement among "scientists" but rather among a tiny subset, such as "those climate scientists who publish the most in the field".)

dirktheman 12y ago

If I put 20 mice in a container, together with a toy car, measure the temperature in the container for 2 months and write a report about my findings, would that count as scientific proof? Because by definition, scientific proof does not result in 'true' or 'false', right? According to Socrates it's impossible to disprove anything. That's purely a philosophical theory, but in this case it applies pretty well. You can't prove manmade global warming is NOT occuring because, in theory, the global warming that we're seeing (note that the definition of 'global warming' isn't set in stone, too) could be caused by other factors. So, proving something isn't possible is impossible, and to top that this person runs a blog on global warming skepticism. I have the feeling he/she could be somewhat biased... Just to be clear: I'm not debating man-made global warming. It's just that these kind of challenges bug me. Side note: what is 'scientifically proven' anyway? I wrote a thesis on propaganda, and discovered (among other things) that when you say something is 'scientifically proven' most people stop questioning your claim.

triangleman 12y ago

Considering that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is not falsifiable in the first place (a key tenet of the scientific method), this is a strange offer indeed. There may be a purported "consensus" on climate change but that does not make it scientific: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes-but-what-do-we-mean-by-consensus/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nice1 12y ago

Perhaps someone will offer a prize for disproving the existence of angels.

ZenPro 12y ago

Another stunning HN thread where a subset of posters have decided they know more about climate change than people dedicating their lives to the study of climate change. Since so many of you are wagering or believing let me just toss out what I believe. I believe that credible and respected climate change scientists have forgotten more than you could ever know about the subject. Climate Change deniers are a joke and a menace and are tied neck and neck with creationists for the moron awards.

paulhauggis 12y ago
So because I'm not an expert, I should have no opinion on the subject? Experts make mistakes all the time. They are just people, after all. I look at the tech world (which I know very well) and "experts" are wrong all the time. I can't imagine it being much different in other fields. I see people here on HN making comments about the economy. Should all of these opinions be ignored because they aren't experts? Look at the guy that discovered bacteria: The experts of his time shunned him and he died in an insane asylum. Scientists pretty much lose their career overnight if they have any study or research on non man-made climate change. How can we really have an honest debate when this kind of behavior is going on?
- DanBC 12y ago
  People are paid money to sow uncertainty about climate science. These tactics are the same ones used by tobacco companies. The tactics are the same and many of the scientists are the same. That's not an honest debate. The reason people don't engage with you has nothing to do with whether you're an expert or not. It's because people who deny climate change often grab a snippet of science, out of context, and that's been given a spin by deniers. Then, rather than learning why that bit is flawed or what the context is they'll just throw it into a discussion and demand that it is explained. And then they'll grab another bit. And another bit. Eventually it's easier to regard this as trolling (which it is - concern trolling) and treat appropriately (by stopping feeding the trolls).

peter303 12y ago

Considering my classmates the Koch brothers have given $10Ms to various organizations with the same goal, this is small potatoes.

pessimizer 12y ago

A lot of crackpots think that they already have. To make this a good-faith offer, it might be good to google all of the major theories from the denialist side and explain in black-and-white terms why they would or would not qualify for the prize. Otherwise, it's just asking somebody to volunteer to be your punching bag for free.

logfromblammo 12y ago

Well, let's just rough out the experiment, shall we? First, we need to establish that human activity can change the climate. For the sake of argument, let's try rainfall in the Sonora Desert. What we could do is to burrow an underground canal from the Gulf of California into Laguna Salada, and from there to the Salton Sink. This would establish shallow, inland, saltwater seas upwind of the desert, in a very sunny area, as a source of atmospheric humidity. Evaporation would be further encouraged with sea salt manufacturing beds and Salicornia bigelovii plantations. (It would also displace thousands of people whose homes would now be underwater, but let's handwave that aside for now.) We then erect solar-powered ionization towers downwind of the new seas, to stimulate cloud formation via charged particles of dust. Those clouds will tend to blow east over the desert and rain out. To extend the rainfall further east, we simply plant dry-tolerant plants--such as sorghum, lucern, and field pea--in the newly wet areas, to recycle moisture back into the air via transpiration. Results of the experiment will compare weather patterns in Yuma and Mexicali before and after the megaproject. And then, after spending (optimistically) $20 billion on the subterranean saltwater tunnels, and $100 million on the cloud seeders, we can collect our $10000. Yay! In comparison to what it would cost to test experimentally a hypothesis that states the entirety of global human economic activity is influencing weather patterns, you will have to spend an amount capable of simulating a portion of the global human economy towards a directed experimental purpose. $10000 isn't even a round-off error. You would be better off buying up unproductive arid land and leasing it to cattle ranchers as semi-arid grazing land afterward.

mdip 12y ago

Let's just take this a piece at a time. ...there is a 97% consensus that humans are causing and exacerbating climate change... Ignoring the lack of citation, why is it necessary to resort to band-wagon style marketing? ...the only reason so many scientists agree on climate change being a thing is because all the ones who disagree are being “censored” or something... I don't think that most of us who are skeptical about climate change believe that scientists are being censored as a matter of scientific conspiracy. It happens that the "fix" for man-made climate change also aligns well with a particular political party. Unfortunately, this results in people who are equally ignorant about the science involved supporting climate change simply because they support the economic policies that would be enacted to "reverse" climate change. ...These people often believe that there is actual scientific evidence disproving climate change. There, of course, is not. Isn't that the same argument made by academics when religious observers attempt to reason faith against evidence? And isn't the author now asking for us to "prove via the scientific method" something that would be impossible to do? Perhaps that's the point? Who wants to lose $10,000 of their own money? I know nothing about this guy except what I've read in this one post, but I feel that the author is being intellectually dishonest and with his "prize" and, instead, is attempting to argue his point via propaganda.

bprieto 12y ago

Disproving climate change is virtually impossible. Every scientist agree that climate changes, it has done so in the past, will do in the future and is doing it in the present. That is not an interesting question. The interesting questions are: - Is climate changing in a different way (faster, for example) than it has done in the past? - Do humans have anything to do with it? Is it caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2? - Will this change be negative? - If the change is negative (be it man-made or not), can we stop it? - If we can stop this climate change, how much will it cost? Will this money better spent stopping climate or is a better strategy to adapt to this change? - Do we understand climate physics well enough to create models that can predict the climate of the future? This last question is important, because if we can not produce a model that can predict the future well enough, all the other questions are irrelevant. And it seems that predictions of the models and reality are showing quite significant discrepancies: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/ http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-... So it's not black or white, yes or no, good or bad. As usually it is in science. Name-calling, appealing to consensus, arguments of authority… those are never the result of science at work.