Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
deathandtaxesmag.com
Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
1–10 of 106 posts
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#2The 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.
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#3Can you really prove something by the scientific method? Maybe it would be better to say "show a likelihood of at least x%"?
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#4The 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.
Who ever agreed to be tolerant of fascist religions?
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#5does that mean that lack of scientific proof means it is real? is that what they are trying to get at?
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#6The 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.
I'll wager a guess that it's because the stakes of being wrong on climate change are pretty high.
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#7The 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.
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.
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#8Can you really prove something by the scientific method? Maybe it would be better to say "show a likelihood of at least x%"?
True. It's a kind of "intellectual" PR stunt. Hopefully, at least it will get rid of the cheap arguments on the opposite side.
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#9Let'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?
Re: Physicist offers $10,000 for anyone to scientifically disprove climate change
#10The 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.
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.