Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

deathandtaxesmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

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

#41

Post by _archon_ »

unabridged wrote: post #18

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.

This is a fair perspective. I propose that the scientific community's collective stance is not that this is a wild deviation from typical variations, but that a significant change will result in unfavorable consequences for humanity as a species. Such change is occurring based on the data we have available to us. If we can mitigate or delay such change, we will be better off for it. This leads to emission controls, etc.

I believe the cause for concern among the proponents of awareness and regulation is that a notable change is happening, and we desperately want the status quo. Whether or not this change falls within normal variations is irrelevant to this argument.

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

#42

Post by triangleman »

mkhaytman wrote: post #30
unabridged wrote: post #18

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.

What difference does it make if the cause is entirely man made or not. Should we let 80% of worlds population who live on the coast just deal with rising sea levels, because it natural? Do you really need to know it's causing a rise in temperature to want less trucks and cars polluting the air in your city? Or does the fact that we will never have the historic data to know for sure if humans are causing global warmin…

>What difference does it make if the cause is entirely man made or not.

If it's not entirely man made, it would mean that efforts to curtail emissions (and consequently economic output) would be pointless and unnecessary.

>Should we let 80% of worlds population who live on the coast just deal with rising sea levels, because it natural?

It's not like the sea will simply rise several meters overnight, if it does actually rise. And again, if it's natural, then wouldn't that mean that we must, in fact, "deal with it"?

>Do you really need to know it's causing a rise in temperature to want less trucks and cars polluting the air in your city?

The air pollution you are concerned about here is sulfur, particulates, and other things unrelated to the CO2 debated over by politicians currently.

>Or does the fact that we will never have the historic data to know for sure if humans are causing global warming, make it okay to ignore the issue entirely, forever?

It certainly moves one's focus of concern to more pressing environmental and social issues.

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

#43

Post by bsbechtel »

waps wrote: post #10
hartator wrote: post #2

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.

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…

I thought one of (not the only) the main aspects of the scientific method was that it could only be used to disprove a theory, but never to prove it 100% correct. For example, you cannot ever prove that Big Foot is a hoax, but you can disprove it by finding him. Or, the theory of gravity can never be proven, only disproven if an experiment showed it to be false. Isn't that all this scientist is asking for?

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

#44

Post by unabridged »

kbd wrote: post #31
Malarkey73 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

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.

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?

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

#45

Post by asgard1024 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #9

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. Obv…

OK, challenge accepted. :-) I am submitting this: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Please provide the comments why the evidence failed to prove the point.

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

#46

Post by belovedeagle »

_archon_ wrote: post #41
unabridged wrote: post #18

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.

This is a fair perspective. I propose that the scientific community's collective stance is not that this is a wild deviation from typical variations, but that a significant change will result in unfavorable consequences for humanity as a species. Such change is occurring based on the data we have available to us. If we can mitigate or delay such change, we will be better off for it. This leads to emission controls, e…

This is a refreshingly honest analysis. Personally I'm not convinced by the need to maintain the status quo, however. We can read all about 'X species going extinct in Y years', 'Average temperatures will go up by .X degrees in Y years', and 'X miles of coastline will be destroyed in Y years', and yet none of this explains /why/ these are undesirable outcomes. The unstated premise is that "change is bad", which is a strange position to take, to say the least.

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

#47

Post by pessimizer »

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.

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

#48

Post by paulhauggis »

crdoconnor wrote: post #9

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. Obv…

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.

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

#49

Post by facepalm »

unabridged wrote: post #18

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.

I don't understand why that line of thought makes you a skeptic. Apparently you found something the current data can not answer. But why do you think your question is even relevant - more important than, say, average temperature? Just because there are questions a model can't answer, the model isn't proven wrong. It just shows that there are things we don't know yet, not that everything we know is wrong.

(I am not a climate scientist so I don't know what the main data points are that are employed in the arguments. I also don't know if your claim that your question can not be answered is correct or not)

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

#50

Post by unabridged »

facepalm wrote: post #49
unabridged wrote: post #18

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.

I don't understand why that line of thought makes you a skeptic. Apparently you found something the current data can not answer. But why do you think your question is even relevant - more important than, say, average temperature? Just because there are questions a model can't answer, the model isn't proven wrong. It just shows that there are things we don't know yet, not that everything we know is wrong. (I am not a…

My point is that you cannot even begin to ask what humans are doing to the global temperature if you do not even have an idea what it would look like without humans.
Post reply on HN