edit

This is bs ment to garner support against global warming by saying look no one can prove it. Thats because the word 'prove' in science is a very strict term. Scientists have shown massive correlation but to show causation is much more difficult. Just because no one can prove it is true doesn't mean it is not true.

While were at it we should start a few more challenges

disprove 1 of the following:

God does exist
God does not exist
Macro-Evolution is real
Macro-Evolution is false
That me drinking a can of coke this morning will prevent a massive earthquake in China.

Very few things in science can be "proved" to be true. Instead things are shown to likely be true with a certain amount of confidence.

so it's cool if I live like Al Gore, practically speaking?

Cool man....... I'm ready to buy my H3, throw on a thoughtful bumper sticker that would make the nobel committee proud (and head off any middle fingers from angry college kids)...what else can I do....hmmm

this games hard. I don't even really want an H3.

GLOBAL WARMING SUCKS!!!

I would think it's more of an attempt at hyperbole to prove a point: that there is evidence both ways, and too many are willing to draw a conclusion for the human-caused global warming theory this early in the experiment, so to speak.

Hehe I got a perfect score on the global warming test.

I'm such a perfect little brain washed conservative:hyper:

Since Steve Milloy (= contest judge) doesn't believe there's any proof of human evolution either, I guess it's a valid contest.

Ottopilot, do you have an opinion that you want to discuss/defend on this subject, or is this just a troll?

Come on, guys, this is serious. We might lose Malta.

Gimme another couple years....then ask me again

edit

Since you can't really prove a multi variable system where the true extent or even number of variables are not known using a computer simulation then you can't have any real proof of human caused global warming being the 'proof' is reliant on this. Since these computer models can't even work backwards and 'predict' past known climates, you can understand my skepticism.

Another current prediction is that the sun is entering a solar maximum but you can't buy gain votes complaining against the sun.

You can't possibly be serious.

edit

The problem is, I can’t tell if you’re real or a parody. Before I can form an opinion on your real position, I'd like to know in more detail what it is. Do you seriously believe that Steve Milloy is going to give anybody $125,000? Do you seriously believe he has any more credibility on this subject than, say, the IPCC? Do you seriously believe that the outcome of this "contest" has any scientific significance whatsoever? Do you seriously believe that scientific knowledge is determined by a contest set up by some guy on the web?

Would you also find it scientifically interesting if Philip Morris hired someone to put up a website asking for proof that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and nobody won the contest?

Would you also find it scientifically interesting if Jimmy Swaggart hired someone to put up a contest telling evolutionists to put up or shut up, and nobody won the contest?

Would you also find it scientifically interesting if a flat-earther created a web contest for round-earthers to submit their “proof”, and nobody won the contest?

Is this how you form your personal scientific beliefs, by surfing the web for contests?

If you answer all these questions in the affirmative, then you’ve won my contest, and “proven” to my satisfaction that this thread is a parody. If not, then maybe there’s a little fodder for discussion somewhere here.

By this logic any post where a reply is sought is a troll, please..........

Just as know one will ever prove the existence of anything paranormal to the satisfaction of the godly James Randi, know one will ever prove man-made global warming to the satisfaction of these guys.

The real trolls are the UGWC (whatever the fuck that is), & JREF. They lure them in with the money, tear any evidence to shreds (which is easily done, no matter how compelling the evidence), then dismiss all comers. I'm sure they must then pat each other on the back, & congratulate each other on their flawless logic..........

I would like to see this assertion proven. Please 'tear apart' the evidence supporting the theory of a heliocentric solar system. Or the theory of gravity. Or the theory of evolution even, if that's your favourite.

Speaking of the IPCC, I'm curious to know; have you read the report? Not saying I disagree with you, I'm just wondering.

Personally I think this, like many things, gets hyped completely out of proportion. Yes, global average temperatures are rising. We know this. The IPCC has shown to a reasonable degree of probability that the cause of this warming is partially anthropogenic (caused by humans). They arrived at that conclusion largely through meta-analysis and synthesis of hundreds of seperate reports. This is an indication that there may be something to the assertion that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

I'm not invested enough to go through the sourced articles in the 2001 report, but I think it's interesting that meta-analysis was the main source of concern, given that meta-analysis is somewhat unreliable.

I found it interesting that the IPCC highlighted the flaws in their own analysis method multiple times; in particular they showed two different numbers for the degree to which warming has impacted various species, citing different exclusion factors used to arrive at the separate conclusions.

Basically, global warming at this stage should be categorized as a hypothesis. Initial analysis of trends does show a correlation between anthropogenic factors and increased global temperatures, but the conclusion that we're destroying the planet by driving our cars too much is far from certain.

On the other hand, global warming does make a great political platform.

Take from that what you will.

Now Mr. Martian, you must read my posts before jumping to conclusions. Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups......

As you can plainly see I was referring to evidence presented to the UGWC or JREF in relation to proof of man-made global warming or the paranormal.

My mistake. I assumed 'compelling evidence' would refer to compelling evidence as a basis for any theory. If you don't mind my asking then, what differentiates these two hypotheses that the evidence, although seemingly compelling, is so easy to discredit?

Has anyone else noted the endless back and forth on the causes of Climate Change, and the simple conclusion that we all use the debate to avoid actually dealing with this unfortunate reality?

I have noted a pattern in the larger issue, in that most persons of any education on the subject tend to agree we are experiencing an increase in temperatures, at a rate not seen before in the records we can gain access to. This leads to a conclusion that perhaps we should address the impacts such changes will have on our species as a whole.

Yet, instead of trying to deal with expanding desert areas, fluctuating weather patterns, changes in ocean levels, and damage to coastal areas expected from this climate change....we spend our time beating the long dead CO2 horse, and try to find blame for something that is likely to hurt many people over a very long period of time.

Why cant we all just agree to disagree on the causes, and focus on the actual issues?

My thoughts exactly, tecoyah.

Why do we need to prove or disprove our negative impact? Why not find out what positive influence we can have?

The degree to which global warming is anthropogenic is directly related to what, if anything, we can do. All this fuss and bother about reducing emissions is rather pointless if our greenhouse gas emissions aren't a significant contributing factor. Further, if this is a natural process, it's entirely possible that there isn't anything we can do, or indeed anything we should do.

So the argument is actually highly relevant.

edit

Generally, I would agree with this.

However, you can't find a solution when you don't know fully what the problem is.

We have an idea (increasing global temperatures), but we don't know the causes or effects with enough affirmation to state the problem and go about solving it.

The image I have in mind is of the tough, “put up or shut up,” swaggering, sarcastic skeptic, who, sadly enough, is not so skeptical that he fails to be punked by Steve Milloy’s ULTIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CONTEST.

If it’s a parody, then I compliment your comic instincts. If not, then I have to conclude, sadly again, that irony is truly dead.

edit

This is basically a copy of Kent Hovind's evolution "contest." If anyone can prove to him that evolution is true, to his satisfaction, he'll give them $250,000. But of course it's impossible to convince a young-earth creationist that evolution is real so of course nobody has "won." It's just a stupid publicity stunt. Likewise, nobody is going to convince JunkScience, a site devoted to asserting Global Warming's falsity.

There's alot of anger of the contest, but not alot has been said about the GLOBAL WARMING TEST. Has anyone learned anything?

....of course not.

Whats to learn? I got a perfect score :thumbsup:

First, just to get this out of the way, we can still treat the symptoms of the problem even though we may not be positive about the origin. Not that I have any ideas how, but maybe for the time being, while we continue to research the causes, we focus on trying to work on that problems that global warming may be causing.

I agree, it is important to know what the causes are in order to be able to find solutions, however, I don't think the determining factor of whether or not there is anything we can do is directly (or only) related to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic.

I believe that there are things we can do if we know the cause even if global warming is not anthropogenic.
The actual cause will be the determining factor of whether or not there is anything we can do.

For example, IF the (only) cause is the sun and we know it, can't we work on ways to protect the earth from the effects of ths sun?

Which theory would you like me tear apart? Gravity is not a real force but is the effect of inertial motion through the curvature of space-time. :thumbsup: If you know enough of the subject you can always pick apart the wording of the argument.

As statistics is only a means of determining correlation and not causality (drink a Coke a day to keep the earthquakes in China away and what naught), does that mean we shouldn't take care of the planet? Last I checked it would take a millennium to terraform Mars and I am one of those impatient people for cool stuff like terraforming a planet.

EDIT: gotta go with Tecoyah on this. Regardless of how responsible human beings and human technology are towards causing climate change, it can't hurt to think green.

This is precisely what I'm saying, though. At this point, we don't actually have any evidence that there is a problem.

Look, nobody's saying global warming isn't happening. Temperatures have gone up in the last century or so; the exact amount and the causes are open to discussion, but that it's happening isn't. How do we know that this is a bad thing, though?

I mean, sure, species are going extinct. Go talk to the dinosaurs, they'll tell you that's been happening for hundreds of millions of years. Ecological systems are changing; that happens too.

Your last statement actually highlights a lot of the misunderstanding, I think. The sun isn't the sole cause here, because there is no one single cause. There's myriad small causes and factors and circumstances that, when taken together, seem to indicate that there may be a problem. Or maybe not. We don't really know because, as Ustwo pointed out, the whole thing is far too complicated for us to be able to really effectively isolate any one individual case of cause and effect.

You're right, this pretty much discredits Newton's Principia (or at least the part of it pertaining to gravitational theory). The Principia is obsolete, though. Modern gravitational theory is a component of general relativity (which pretty much says what you said, only in more scientific terms).

You can try to disprove the whole heliocentric solar system thing, though. Y'know, if you want to.

There is no misunderstanding.
I used the word if and capitalized it on purpose hoping that no one would think that I was saying the sun is the cause.

I was just try point out that there may be non-anthropogenic causes that we may be able to resolve/avoid if we knew what they were.
I was trying to say that it is possibel that we can do something about non-anthropogenic causes as well.

Well here is a scientific test. In order to determine the extent of anthropogenic causes towards climate change, I will require all nations and people of the world to Think Green, as it is, and adopt all environmentally friendly systems. This will allow for controlling one of the variables in order to observe the affect of all other variables. Evaluations can be made however-the-hell-often you feel like it. This would be the most expensive test ever conducted: do you know how many people and companies I would have to bribe!

Wouldn't it be hilarious if we triggered a new ice age while trying to prevent global warming since we really don't understand the variables or causes.

Imagine we do something to lower the global temp, hurray! Then we get two volcanic eruptions....oh shit...

Isn’t “The world is waaay too complicated, how could I have possibly known this would happen” the Official Motto of the Darwin Award?

If it isn’t, I think it should be. Maybe we should take up a collection to have it inscribed on every winner’s grave stone.