7 ms·

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 occu

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
  Correlation != Causation.* Maybe climate patterns are on a 650,001 year cycle? * I make no claims as to my stance on the issue. I am simply playing devil's advocate.
  - asgard1024 12y ago
    Ah well, I guess you can play it that way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHXTa-946Bw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHXTa-946Bw Still, it was worth of potential $10000. :-) Anyway, I actually had a larger point. If the person giving the challenge is serious about this, they may easily prove it by giving back more helpful/reasonable comments.
paulhauggis 12y ago
My issue is that I've heard many pro global warming scientists on public radio say that even if man-made global warming doesn't exit, we should have all of these regulations and tax increases because it's good for the environment.
- naturalethic 12y ago
  The issue has always been increased state control.
- asgard1024 12y ago
  So what exactly do you have to lose if you leave the oil/coal in the ground? It will still be there for your descendants. Especially, if you accept that global warming exists but is not man-made, it may be useful to keep backup of energy to be able to deal with it in the future, wouldn't it?
  - streptomycin 12y ago
    Easy for rich Westerners to say. We're not the ones who will have to go back to subsistence farming.
  - glenra 12y ago
    Our descendants will be vastly richer and smarter and better informed than we are, so you're saying we should tax the poor to help the rich. Making energy more expensive now reduces economic progress, which is exactly the thing we need to outgrow this and all other future potential threats.
    - asgard1024 12y ago
      Yeah. Or our descendants will be doomed. We have no idea. This could be a good argument if the actual profits from coal and oil were really going to development of sustainable technologies (or poor people, in case of argument from streptomycin). In fact, that's precisely what the carbon tax proposals try to induce. But I am not convinced; oil and coal companies fight this tooth and nail.
forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
I don't get why people make a distinction between man-made climate change, and "natural" climate change, when both have equally terrible results. Even if the earth is "natually" warming, it's still going to cause issues. Why not work to stop it?
- streptomycin 12y ago
  Imagine you are someone who believes that we don't understand the climate well enough to determine if releasing ridiculous amounts of CO2 has any effect whatsoever. If you believed that, you probably wouldn't think that we understood the climate well enough to alter it.
Mz 12y ago
Well, IIRC, the issue is that with science, nothing can be definitely be "proven." What makes it something in the scientific realm is that it is potentially disprovable. No? So while we can show correlation and come up with hypotheses and theories etc ad nauseum, as I understand it, you can't "prove" anything. Supposedly. You can just show that your current theory is better than what we had before, basically. So the "$10k to disprove" works scientifically. The "$10k to prove" should not. Or so I understand it.

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
Correlation != Causation.* Maybe climate patterns are on a 650,001 year cycle? * I make no claims as to my stance on the issue. I am simply playing devil's advocate.
- asgard1024 12y ago
  Ah well, I guess you can play it that way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHXTa-946Bw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHXTa-946Bw Still, it was worth of potential $10000. :-) Anyway, I actually had a larger point. If the person giving the challenge is serious about this, they may easily prove it by giving back more helpful/reasonable comments.

paulhauggis 12y ago

My issue is that I've heard many pro global warming scientists on public radio say that even if man-made global warming doesn't exit, we should have all of these regulations and tax increases because it's good for the environment.

naturalethic 12y ago
The issue has always been increased state control.
asgard1024 12y ago
So what exactly do you have to lose if you leave the oil/coal in the ground? It will still be there for your descendants. Especially, if you accept that global warming exists but is not man-made, it may be useful to keep backup of energy to be able to deal with it in the future, wouldn't it?
- streptomycin 12y ago
  Easy for rich Westerners to say. We're not the ones who will have to go back to subsistence farming.
- glenra 12y ago
  Our descendants will be vastly richer and smarter and better informed than we are, so you're saying we should tax the poor to help the rich. Making energy more expensive now reduces economic progress, which is exactly the thing we need to outgrow this and all other future potential threats.
  - asgard1024 12y ago
    Yeah. Or our descendants will be doomed. We have no idea. This could be a good argument if the actual profits from coal and oil were really going to development of sustainable technologies (or poor people, in case of argument from streptomycin). In fact, that's precisely what the carbon tax proposals try to induce. But I am not convinced; oil and coal companies fight this tooth and nail.

forgotpasswd3x 12y ago

I don't get why people make a distinction between man-made climate change, and "natural" climate change, when both have equally terrible results. Even if the earth is "natually" warming, it's still going to cause issues. Why not work to stop it?

streptomycin 12y ago
Imagine you are someone who believes that we don't understand the climate well enough to determine if releasing ridiculous amounts of CO2 has any effect whatsoever. If you believed that, you probably wouldn't think that we understood the climate well enough to alter it.

Mz 12y ago

Well, IIRC, the issue is that with science, nothing can be definitely be "proven." What makes it something in the scientific realm is that it is potentially disprovable. No? So while we can show correlation and come up with hypotheses and theories etc ad nauseum, as I understand it, you can't "prove" anything. Supposedly. You can just show that your current theory is better than what we had before, basically. So the "$10k to disprove" works scientifically. The "$10k to prove" should not. Or so I understand it.