backtop


Print 179 comment(s) - last by Hare.. on Oct 8 at 2:00 PM

Skeptic site offers payout for scientific proof of threat

JunkScience.com just issued a bounty of $125,000 to anyone able to demonstrate that human-induced climate-change is a threat to the planet.

The contest, entitled "The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge," is being advertised via a YouTube video entitled Can You Save Al Gore?.

 

The sum is a 25% increase over the previous offer of $100,000 prize announced two months ago. To win, one must scientifically prove both that anthropogenic (human-generated) greenhouse gases are causing global warming, and that the net results will be more harmful than positive through the year 2100.

So far no entries have been received, a response JunkScience.com founder Steven J. Milloy finds "surprising." However, Milloy says the offer is genuine and assures everyone that he and his financial backers are good for the money.

Milloy has more than the $125,00 at stake.  "If it's a matter of money, Al Gore and the alarmists should just come out and tell us what sum it will cost the rest of us to see what proof they have," Milloy elaborated.

Contestants have until December 1, 2008 to submit their entries.  Winners, if any, will be announced on February 1, 2009.  All submissions require a $15 entry fee as well.

More details and offer rules are available at www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why not?
By hampstead40 on 10/2/2007 7:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
what is everyone afraid of. should be a chip shot. what's wrong with an entry fee? as we are told day after day - that places like NYC & London will be under water in 10 years! yet real estate continues to sell in both of those places at a record rate and at record prices. no, i would like to have somebody "do the math" and post it.




RE: Why not?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/2/2007 7:33:16 AM , Rating: 4
Because they are calling the bluff. You can let them talk about theories all day long, but when it comes down to proving it on paper using hard numbers entrenched in the scientific and mathematical disciplines they can't do it and they know it.


RE: Why not?
By Trixanity on 10/2/2007 7:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
Let's just say that global warming is not man-made, but humans speed it up. So I don't know why Americans are so sceptic and avoid making a good name of themselves by caring and try stop their own huge amount of CO2 dumped by the US.
Yes, I'm gonna get flamed a lot for generalizing a fair bit and because I'm not from the US. Very well, but it's true, that all the CO2 speeds up everything and it should be slowed for as long as possible. You may build nuclear power plants, if you wish or any other form of alternative energy. I don't think I have much else to say (Most of it will probably just be me repeating myself and I feel no need)


RE: Why not?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/2/2007 8:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's just say that global warming is not man-made, but humans speed it up.

I think it's pretty arrogant to believe humans are speeding up global warming. Right now nobody can even prove to any reasonable ability just what is causing it. Solar output, Greenhouse Gases, Natural climate shift, take your pick.

quote:
So I don't know why Americans are so sceptic and avoid making a good name of themselves by caring and try stop their own huge amount of CO2 dumped by the US.

Because the negligible amount of CO2 produced by the U.S. isn't going to speed up global warming. You would have better luck arguing that Methane production in the U.S. is causing it.

quote:
Very well, but it's true, that all the CO2 speeds up everything and it should be slowed for as long as possible.

Ok, now this is the best point you've made so far. Why should it be slowed down for as long as possible? You made a solid point, now support it with logic, facts, reason, and proof. Also take into the consideration that it's not really "Global Warming" but perhaps a "Climate Shift" where some areas get warmer, others colder. (Hint: Check out the size of the poles)

quote:
I don't think I have much else to say (Most of it will probably just be me repeating myself and I feel no need)

There is no need to repeat yourself, you just now need to support and argue your claims.


RE: Why not?
By piotrr on 10/2/2007 8:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's pretty arrogant to believe humans can't make a difference, as if all the dumb things we do have no results and we shouldn't have to take any responsibility for them.

Solar output is not to blame, simply because solar output has not increased.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Natural climate shift is not to blame, simply because natural climate change doesn't occur on this scale in neither time nor magnitude.

Were you asking us to look at the size of the poles on the north and south ends of planet Earth (of which the ice covers are shrinking), or were you trying to sidetrack the discussion further by pulling onto the subject of obesity among easter Europeans (who are growing somewhat larger over time)?

/ Per


RE: Why not?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 8:59:36 AM , Rating: 2
IF solar output is not increasing then how do you explain the temp increases on Mars? certainly you are not ignorant enough to blame the solar rovers.

And did you not hear, the north pole might be shrinking, but the south poles gettin bigger!


RE: Why not?
By kyp275 on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why not?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 11:03:46 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, i was simply following the standard order of operations global warming proponents use.

We think the earth is warming up. Must mean we have been causing it to. Evidence never supports claims. Blah blah blah we're awesome so we are always right! Look we fudged some numbers! We have computer models!


RE: Why not?
By Murst on 10/2/2007 2:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We think the earth is warming up


Incorrect. We know the earth is warming up. All these lively debates here are whether we're a significant cause of that or not.


RE: Why not?
By Spuke on 10/2/2007 3:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
This should be an easy $125,000 for someone. Get to crackin!!!


RE: Why not?
By blaster5k on 10/2/2007 9:27:15 AM , Rating: 3
From what I've read, the temperature changes on Mars are explained by normal variation in the planet's orbit in conjunction with its seasons...

I did a search and couldn't find anything credible that links Mars warming to what we're seeing on Earth.


RE: Why not?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/2/2007 9:35:03 AM , Rating: 1
The north pole is shrinking, the South pole is growing, ergo I'm leaning towards Climate Shift rather than the entire planet warming up as a whole.So it gets a little warmer on the northern hemisphere, it gets a little colder on the southern hemisphere.... big deal.


RE: Why not?
By vortmax on 10/2/2007 10:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
My theory on why the North pole ice is shrinking and the South's is not...

Most industrialized nations reside north of the equator. Since the hadley cells force air to rise near the equator (ITCZ - Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone), all those greenhouse gases in the Northern Hemisphere get 'wrung' out by the precip and never make it south.

Discuss....


RE: Why not?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 10:57:51 AM , Rating: 2
Or the northern hemisphere is slowly tipping toward the sun. (total off the wall first thought. IF the axis changes and the northern hemisphere then ends up closer to the sun it would get warmer and the southern hemisphere would get further from the sun and get colder)


RE: Why not?
By smitty3268 on 10/2/2007 10:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
There's no real evidence that the South pole is growing - the study masher showed had it being very close to 0 growth, and the margin of error was much larger than that meaning it could have even been shrinking (like other studies have shown).

Although clearly there's something different going on compared to the North pole.


RE: Why not?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why not?
By vortmax on 10/2/2007 11:12:18 AM , Rating: 1
I have a theory :)


RE: Why not?
By vortmax on 10/2/2007 11:11:30 AM , Rating: 2
I thought Masher's blog was stating that the antarctic ice was thickening and increasing in coverage...

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8871


RE: Why not?
By porkpie on 10/2/2007 11:43:56 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There's no real evidence that the South pole is growing - the study masher showed had it being very close to 0 growth, and the margin of error was much larger than that meaning it could have even been shrinking
You people are funny. When the IPCC released its 3rd global warming report (the one before this last one) it predicted global warming of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees over the next 100 years, with a 1.8 degree margin of error. That could have meant the earth was actually cooling, but you all stood on the rooftops and shouted it "proved" catastrophic global warming.

In any case Masher posted TWO studies. The other one didn't have the large error margin, and still clearly shows a rising trend over the last 30 years.


RE: Why not?
By Hare on 10/8/2007 2:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it gets a little warmer on the northern hemisphere, it gets a little colder on the southern hemisphere.... big deal.
Yeah. Big deal because we all live in parts of the world that are only positively affected. Who gives a "#¤%& about those who are already fighting droughts etc...


RE: Why not?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/2/2007 12:07:19 PM , Rating: 4
> "Natural climate shift is not to blame, simply because natural climate change doesn't occur on this scale in neither time nor magnitude"

Err, what? Natural climate shifts of far larger magnitude have occurred countless times in the earth's past. Are you seriously trying to claim that the current 0.75 degrees of warming is of greater magnitude than the last Ice Age, when Canada and the Northern US were buried under several hundred feet of solid ice? Or the 90% of the Earth's history in which it was so warm that no polar caps existed at all, with sea levels at times 600 feet higher than today's levels?

Even on a time scale, recent research has identified many cases of sudden climate change, at rates much faster than we're seeing today.

> "Solar output is not to blame, simply because solar output has not increased."

Lockwood's paper was debunked by several authors almost before it was released. Here's one such analysis by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, which details some of the basic errors made by Lockwood:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-i...

Here's a summary of just one of the many errors, which Shaviv puts in language easy enough for even laymen to understand:

quote:
There is a lag between the response and the forcing. Typically, one expects lags which depend on the time scale of the variations. The 11-year solar cycle gives rise to a 2-year lag in the 0.1°C observed temperature variations. Similarly, the response to the 20th century warming should be delayed by typically a decade. Climatologists know this very well (the IPCC report, for example, includes simulation results for the many decades long response to a "step function" in the forcing, and climatologists talk about "global warming commitment" that even if the CO2 would stabilize, or even decrease, we should expect to see the "committed warming", e.g., Science 307), but [Lockwood and Fröhlich] are not climatologists ...

This is not unlike a very well-known effect from everyday life. Even though the maximum radiation from the Sun is received near noon time, the maximum daily temperatures are obtained a few hours later in the afternoon. If we were to correlate the falling radiation between say noon and 3 pm (or between June 21 and July-August), to the increasing temperature over the same period, we would conclude that solar radiation causes cooling! This is exactly what [Lockwood and Fröhlich] are doing


RE: Why not?
By clovell on 10/2/2007 12:11:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Natural climate shift is not to blame, simply because natural climate change doesn't occur on this scale in neither time nor magnitude.
You'll have to forgive me for not taking you at your word on that one.


RE: Why not?
By PlasmaBomb on 10/2/2007 4:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
Helps if you actually read the reference that you are linking to -
quote:
Most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.


Recently it solar output has dropped slightly, who knows if the solar output will continue to decline or if it is only a temporary dip in output. What effect this will have on climate is still a bit early to tell, as by definition climate is long term.


RE: Why not?
By gsellis on 10/2/2007 8:37:21 AM , Rating: 3
Because, like everyone else, you are following false assumptions. CO2 is not the greenhouse gas it is billed to be. CO2 has been the result of warming and not the cause of warming historically. There are too many datapoints to disprove that CO2 is causal to warming. That is the big issue. If you propose a theory and there is contradictory information, it tends to refute the theory. Higher temps remove CO2 from solution, so as the temp goes higher, so goes CO2. Not vice versa.

As for temps, over 120 years ago, it was the end of a mini ice age. When you leave an ice age, temps go which way? Solar heating is up, so we blame it on CO2?

Also, you need to follow what is going on with the sole "proof" of global warming, Hansen's data. Like the Hockey Stick model, there is considerable tweeking of the data to make it fit the theory (iow, lying with statistics.) There are key examples of keeping bad data (poorly sited survey stations) and biasing good data (well sited stations that have had early temps lowered and later temps raised.) Since he finally released the data and models just weeks ago, it is still being reviewed. Global warming has been based on his materials and unlike any scientist, he would not let anyone have the materials to repeat the experiment. That is fakery, not science.


RE: Why not?
By clovell on 10/2/2007 12:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, see - you don't get it. CO2 has magical properties that allow it to break the speed of light and allow effect to precede cause.


RE: Why not?
By HueyD on 10/2/2007 8:49:30 AM , Rating: 2
They generally associate CO2 emissions with industrialized nations and the industries that produce goods with a by-product of CO2. It is generally accepted that you measure the output or productivity of a country by GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Therefore if you compare the amount of CO2 emission against GDP for each country you can get a good baseline or indicator of how efficient or in-efficient a country is. The numbers are usually easy to find, the UN keeps track of both variables.


RE: Why not?
By porkpie on 10/2/2007 11:35:36 AM , Rating: 1
> "I don't know why Americans are so sceptic and avoid making a good name of themselves by caring and try stop their own huge amount of CO2 dumped by the US."

In 2006, US CO2 emissions actually declined slightly. I don't know which nation you're from, but nearly all the Kyoto signatories have increased their emissions every year since signing.

But hey, it's the thought that counts, right?


RE: Why not?
By Strunf on 10/2/2007 1:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Show me the proofs?...

According with the UNFCC the US has increased its CO2 emissions of 20% from 1990 to 2004...

It's not cause it reduced slightly in a year (if that's the case) that now the trend shifted.

And for your information some countries can even emit more CO2 in 2011/12 than they did in 1990 and still meet the goal.


RE: Why not?
By clovell on 10/2/2007 1:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According with the UNFCC the US has increased its CO2 emissions of 20% from 1990 to 2004...
Right, and now in 2006 we're doing much better - despite not forcing ourselves to do it.


RE: Why not?
By Ringold on 10/2/2007 1:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
In the time it took you to question my favorite piggy's comments credibility, you could've Googled and discovered the truth of his statement and then saved yourself (and me!) some time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Whats more impressive is that we did it despite no economic weakness and without really even trying. Sweet. :P


RE: Why not?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/2/2007 2:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "Show me the proofs?..."

Glad to. U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% in 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...


RE: Why not?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 2:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
The truth cannot be delivered with Novocain. :-)


RE: Why not?
By Strunf on 10/3/2007 6:32:38 AM , Rating: 2
Your link barely covers 1/2 of what he said, besides I also noted that even if it was the case it doesn’t shift the trend since 1990…

What I want is the proof that nearly all the Kyoto signatories have increased their CO2 emissions since 1990… but this proof you won’t give it to me since I’ve already checked that it is incorrect, with many countries having decreased the emissions by double digit values.


RE: Why not?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why not?
By The Count on 10/3/2007 9:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody ever seems to mention the Holocene Thermal Maximum. You know, the period that started roughly 8000 years ago and ended 5000 years ago. When it averaged 3 degrees warmer than present? You know, when all those blasted Sumerians were making advances in agriculture using all those polluting Sport Utility Cattle? Hysteria is running wild. this is 99% natural as the earth is leaving the cooler climate of the Little Ice Age that ended 150 years ago.


RE: Why not?
By phusg on 10/2/2007 10:14:27 AM , Rating: 1
Yes because the professional climate scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, see http://www.ipcc.ch/) are complete dunces when it comes to science/maths.

As I've said before its impossible to prove something about what will happen between now and 2100 until it's 2100. But when in February of 2007 the world's climate scientists on the IPCC say that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there is human-induced climate change (corresponding to a likelihood of more than 90%), then to me it is already 'proven' (beyond a reasonable doubt).

100% proof is only possible in inductive mathematical proofs, not in climate science. This prize is a scam.


RE: Why not?
By clovell on 10/2/2007 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
Or deductive mathematical proofs.
quote:
But when in February of 2007 the world's climate scientists on the IPCC say that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there is human-induced climate change (corresponding to a likelihood of more than 90%),
In my industry, .05 is the alpha level we use. Do you have a link to that?


RE: Why not?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/2/2007 12:38:05 PM , Rating: 3
>the world's climate scientists on the IPCC say that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there is human-induced climate change..."

Incorrect. The actual language in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is "very likely", which they define as 90% or greater. The only thing they state "beyond a reasonable doubt" is that there has been at least some warming observed. The degree and cause of that warming, and whether or not the trend will continue, is given a lower certainty level.

Furthermore, that statement itself was not written by climate scientists. It's part of the "Summary for Policymakers", which is written word-for-word by political representatives from member nations. Many climate scientists (including a few IPCC expert reviewers themselves) disagree sharply with that assessment.


RE: Why not?
By rushfan2006 on 10/2/2007 3:25:27 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly what Master Kenobi said, that and the fact that these kind of "prove it and I'll pay you challenges" are just silly because its one big con.

Its easy and simple to say "hey I'll pay you X dollars if you prove this" -- on whose criteria does the "ruling" go to if you "win" the challenge?

I mean that would be like me going "Prove you can cook a better tasting steak than me and I'll pay you $1,000,000!".....ok but the catch is I'm the one who judges the contest...of course I'll make excuses so I don't have to pay you a dime.


It's a clear set-up.
By piotrr on 10/2/2007 8:55:27 AM , Rating: 5
Just read the rules and the hypotheses once and it's a clear set-up that they cannot possibly lose.

1 - They take 15 dollars for each "contestant" who applies, which means they win even if nobody else does.
2 - The hypotheses are designed to be subjective, which already there should tell you "Wait, science can't be subjective".
3 - The rules are that the "concepts and terms" are vague and subject only to subjective judgement.

In short: They put money on the table, they make all the rules and they make the subjective judgement. At the very best, any attempt at treating this as a serious challenge could lead to controversy, but never a $125,000 transfer. I mean, just look at this humbug:

> "JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest."

The RIGHT to determine the MEANING of the terms and concepts within the contest? Talk about not only vague, but the right to alter the meaning of words throughout the contest? Wow! Anyone up for a game of "piotrr's poker"? Ante's €15, you might win €125,000 if you beat me fair and square. Threes and eights are wild, plus any of the cards in my hand.

/ Per




RE: It's a clear set-up.
By glitchc on 10/2/2007 9:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
Touche, Mr. Salesman.


RE: It's a clear set-up.
By bighairycamel on 10/2/2007 11:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
But Quahog has never had a volcano eruption...
...well don't you think we're overdue for one?


RE: It's a clear set-up.
By Stacey Melissa on 10/2/2007 5:59:09 PM , Rating: 3
I think I'll file this contest under the same category as Kent Hovind's challenge to prove the Theory of Evolution for $250,000: "Junk Science". Subcategory: "Rigged contests for publicity".

The general public has no idea that scientific theories are inductive. They don't know that proof is only a valid concept in mathematics, deductive logic, and alcohol. Hence, this contest is a farce, just like any other that demands "scientific proof". It's a publicity stunt for an ignorant general public.


RE: It's a clear set-up.
By porkpie on 10/2/2007 8:26:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"...just like any other that demands "scientific proof". It's a publicity stunt for an ignorant general public.
Just like those publicity stunts Gore pulls, where he claims that "scientific proof" already exists, eh?


RE: It's a clear set-up.
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 8:46:25 PM , Rating: 1
Its a typical liberal cop out. Just like George Bush's alleged draft dodging, there are only two possible answers: either its true, or more research is needed.

And dont get me started on Gore...always comes out swinging just as an issue is about to go south. grew a beard - just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist muslims. he always leaps into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts.


RE: It's a clear set-up.
By PrinceGaz on 10/3/2007 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
+1


Only $125k
By qball101 on 10/2/2007 5:54:59 AM , Rating: 5
Why don't they offer a million? What sort of research can you do for $125k? This peasly amount makes me think that they are pretty sure that someone will come up with proof.




RE: Only $125k
By glitchc on 10/2/2007 9:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
So many millions are being sunk into global warming research due to its popularity across the globe. The $125K offered here would just be icing on the cake. Plus, you need the money upfront to conduct the research (buy equipment, hire postdocs, grads). It's not like grant money is a loan you have to pay back.


RE: Only $125k
By Mordakk on 10/2/2007 9:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
TextWhy don't they offer a million? What sort of research can you do for $125k? This peasly amount makes me think that they are pretty sure that someone will come up with proof.


I would think that because so many people are out there claiming that humans caused global warming that someone must already have some sort of proof. They must have seen something that the rest of us have not. All this prize is asking for is for anyone who has that proof to submit it. But maybe I assume wrong, maybe there is no proof.


RE: Only $125k
By Dactyl on 10/2/2007 11:24:55 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you assume global warming research would be paid for with the prize money? This isn't like the X-Prize, where the prize pays people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do.

It's already paid for by our tax dollars. Offering scientists $125k on top of that is just gravy.


Controlling the environment
By wordsworm on 10/2/2007 6:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
It's been postulated that volcanic activity is responsible for the cold snap a few thousand years ago. What would it take to create an 'artificial' volcano to counteract this global warming? Couldn't we just select a volcano and give it a little push to detonate and provide a controlled infusion of whatever it is that helps reflect the sun's energy?




RE: Controlling the environment
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 6:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
whatever it is that helps reflect the sun's energy


You mean dirt being blown into the atmosphere which would block the sun?


RE: Controlling the environment
By RobberBaron on 10/2/2007 7:19:13 AM , Rating: 2
Awesome...thanks for the chuckle early in the AM.


RE: Controlling the environment
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 7:52:41 AM , Rating: 1
Ahh, yes i thought of an idea similar to this not too long ago. See, long time ago people were worried about a nuclear winter killing off all life on earth. Now they are worried about global warming drowning all life on earth. So the solution to one with a logical mind is to create a controlled nuclear winter. blow up enough nukes to block out some sunlight, and what light gets in will just keep bouncin around down here cause of all the greenhouse gasses. Thus, perfect climate!

(Disclaimer - "perfect climate" is defined as the climate the earth had 100 years ago regardless of wheather or not that is actually the optimal climate for this planet, which is also the same arbitrary climate that proponents of global warming wish us to have again regardless of what might actually be perfect)


RE: Controlling the environment
By wordsworm on 10/2/2007 8:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem with a nuclear winter is the fallout - radiation sucks.

Also, it can't be just any volcano. Apparently it depends on the type of gases in the volcano what the effect on the environment will be. I don't know how much TNT it would take to motivate a volcano, if it's possible at all, but I would think it would make an interesting study.


RE: Controlling the environment
By Topweasel on 10/2/2007 11:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
Nuvlear Winter, Ozone, and now Global Warming.

While the growth from 2003-2004 was a a large increase we are only now hitting temps from from prior to the 1200's which was when the last mini ice age started. The Iceage ended about 120 years ago and the upswing we have had from there could just be a result of the fact that the world was recovering (it took 600 years to level off) and now the momentum is swinging the other way (equal and opposite reaction). If you ask me the world ever since the big ICE ages started has been nothing more then a driver over correcting when the back starts fish tailing.


Ha
By bighairycamel on 10/2/2007 7:26:17 AM , Rating: 3
Who needs a video??? I'll only need this pic to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Global Warming is a man-made threat...

http://www.picfury.com/2r/img/lead-5.jpg

Make the check out to cash please.




RE: Ha
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/2/2007 7:34:53 AM , Rating: 2
Your link does not function, sir.


RE: Ha
By brenatevi on 10/2/2007 7:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
Pictures aren't everything. Can you prove it scientifically? What equations did you use to model the climate, and more importantly, what assumptions did you make in those equations? The Climate isn't simple.


RE: Ha
By bighairycamel on 10/2/2007 8:42:02 AM , Rating: 1
My appologies, you never know what you get with pic-hosting sites....

try this one...
http://www.picfury.com/2r/lead-5


RE: Ha
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/2/2007 4:35:02 PM , Rating: 1
That was worth a chuckle.


RE: Ha
By AlphaVirus on 10/3/2007 2:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
Why did my Trend Micro virus scanner pop up once I clicked on that link....


Wrong to give them time
By mindless1 on 10/2/2007 8:12:05 AM , Rating: 3
Don't give publicity to these morons. They selectively choose to hold truth to a higher standard than common sense allows. They selectively choose to ignore evidence then think that if they previously ignored evidence, they can just repeat the same illogical excuses.

Am I saying global warming will be the cause of demise for our species? Not at all, but this nonsense they challenge is like a pathetic child saying "prove it" when the child is just too ignorant and lazy to stop whining and learn for themselves.




RE: Wrong to give them time
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/2/2007 8:23:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They selectively choose to ignore evidence then think that if they previously ignored evidence, they can just repeat the same illogical excuses.

What evidence?

quote:
when the child is just too ignorant and lazy to stop whining and learn for themselves.

Ah, no. Your example is when it's simply a matter of not knowing common information that is known by most adults. The topic on hand, proof that global warming is man made and that it is harmful to the planet is a very open issue. There has been no solid answer to this question. There has been a lot of assumptions and political positioning on the issue, but little in the way of solid facts.


RE: Wrong to give them time
By mindless1 on 10/2/2007 11:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually no, there is ample proof global warming is man made and (potentially) harmful, the only real question is to what extent (we're causing or contributing, or degree of harm). In other words, when warming occurs we can't attribute the entire change to man's activities, perhaps we can't even measure a significant difference due to man's activities, but the difference does exist.

It might be that there is no absolute warming, that actually a cooling trend is the eventual outcome but even in this, whatever the global temp would be without man's involvement, the temp is going to be warmer than it would otherwise be. Again it may be by an amount so small as to be unmeasureable, but to not be able to measure something does not mean it isn't present. We can't accurately determine the exact number of sand particles on the earth at any moment in time, but given a precise enough definition of what constitutes a sand particle, it is a real number.

The impact may indeed be trivial or even unnoticable instead of massive, but that does not dismiss it. Lots of things are inherantly bad, but to such a tiny degree there is no relative effect. The challenge wasn't whether any one stereotypical subject will be significantly effected, it was an overly generalized term "bad" leaving them too much latitude for dismissal.

JunkScience feined an attempt at specifics when stipulating "results will be more harmful than positive through the year 2100", but we all know there is no way to truely prove this without taking an acceptible number of data points respective to "bad" indexes, by travelling in a time machine!

They defined a challenge that is impossible to meet through the definition of it, not through lack of evidence.


RE: Wrong to give them time
By clovell on 10/2/2007 12:26:58 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think you get it. This isn't science anymore. This is politics. Plain and simple. We abandoned science a long time ago. Just check out the disparity in the amount of dollars given in federal grants between skeptics and alarmists.

And AGW advocates haven't proven AGW conclusively. Numbers were fudged, models were forced, and alpha levels were dropped to a single deviation. The people who are lazy are the AGW advocates who somehow think they can get away with this crap and get all pissy when people call them out on it. This crap wouldn't fly in a regulated industry.


RE: Wrong to give them time
By just4U on 10/4/2007 3:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, this is no longer science but politics. It's also a bit alarming that they have latched on so heavily to this when the scientific comunity hasn't fully agreed on exactly what the cause is for our global warming trend. Nor have they agreed on what will be the fall out for this shift in temperatures.

It seems politicians and alarmists sift thru some of the material available and cherry pick what suits their own ends..

Politicians for their part either have a hidden agenda or are going with the popular concerns of the day (to get votes). While alarmists tend to put forth worst case scenarios and go to great lengths to convince that they are right. Neither side is helping the scientific comunity get to the bottom of it all as it's all trickling in and effecting their views and the direction their studies take.


RE: Wrong to give them time
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 1:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
In 2004, former Vice President Gore gave a speech on global warming in New York City on the coldest day of the year. Warm trends prove global warming. Cold trends also prove global warming. This is the philosophy of a madman.


By matkun on 10/2/2007 9:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
The originator of junkscience.com isn't exactly an impartial party. It's a strawmen contest. The rules are vague and subjective (just look at the rules page.. it specifically states they are subjective and vague on purpose) which means that any submitions can be ruled as non-winning without a single problem. Then he can stand and shout that no one submitting entries means he is right.

Look up the Wiki article for him.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy) This is the same guy that is paid by Tobacco companies to state that second hand smoke is not harmful and does not cause cancer.




By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 9:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
That guy is bad news, but harmless. Gets paid just like other political figures.

He's no worse than Hillary Clinton's campaign being paid by MoveOn.Org, as well as her "libraries" receiving incentives from the Saudi royal family, Kuwait, Brunei and the Embassy of Qatar.


By Justin Case on 10/3/2007 12:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure what Hillary Clinton has to do with this, but in any case, she is a politician. People expect politicians to be crooks (if they don't, they should). But they are what they claim to be: politicians.

This guy is (officially) a science commentator, but in practical terms he is a lobbyist for dirty industry (including tobacco companies, asbestos producers, etc.) who uses highly "selective" science to make his agenda sound more credible.

He obeys the laws of physics... as long as he's allowed to rewrite them first, so they don't clash with the people signing his checks.

If there were any doubts about his honesty, a quick look at this contest's "rules" should clear it up. Junk Science indeed.


By clovell on 10/3/2007 11:30:59 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, this guy is biased. But, the fact is that Secondhand Smoke is labelled a Class A Carcinogen by the EPA when it doesn't meet the definition (EPA used an alpha level of .10 rather than the standard .05).

If you read up on his major beefs with the issue - like the 1993 EPA meta-analysis you see that at least some of his criticisms are valid. Let's not forget the man has an M.S. in Biostatistics from Hopkins - so while he may be a nutjob, he is qualified to criticize hese studies.

Flame-on if you want. I was just trying to keep the baby from following the fate of the bathwater.


By Justin Case on 10/7/2007 8:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
If the "baby" here is the "challenge", then it's far dirtier than the bathwater. Have you looked at those "rules"...?

And the fact that someone has a degree doesn't mean he or she cannot be essentially a lobbyist, selectively picking evidence to favor whoever pays his bills. I'm not saying he's ignorant, I'm saying he's dishonest.


And in very small print...
By Swaid on 10/2/2007 5:56:40 AM , Rating: 4
Minimum of 8,334 entries must be submitted.




RE: And in very small print...
By James Holden on 10/2/2007 5:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
lol


RE: And in very small print...
By xsilver on 10/2/2007 7:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
just make it an even 10k , the guy starting this doesnt want to save the world for free ;)


Prove?
By Murst on 10/2/2007 11:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
This is rather silly. There really isn't anything in this world that can truly be proven, unless you can make some assumptions. Without listing what these assumptions are, the contest is set up for failure.

Even Descartes couldn't prove he existed without relying on God.




RE: Prove?
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 12:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
I proved I exist by typing this sentence. The only question is where do I exist. The answer to that is does it matter?


RE: Prove?
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 12:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
And if your answer to that final question is yes, you're beyond help.


RE: Prove?
By Murst on 10/2/2007 1:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I proved I exist by typing this sentence.

You didn't prove anything by the standards Descartes set out. :)

Cartesian philosophy is a lot of fun, but the problem is you'll never get anywhere. That's why certain assumptions need to be made.

BTW, the whole point is that, with the way the challange is presented, it would always be possible to claim the proof is insufficient. Granted, it is probably their point, but it would be just as impossible to prove that mankind is not causing global warming and that global warming is not harming the planet.


By dug777 on 10/2/2007 10:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
We've got the anti-gw/anti-anthropogenic change groups on one side, screaming that the gw/anthropogenic change groups on the other side don't have a leg to stand on, and vice-versa.

Reading through the comments here, none of you have actually provided anything remotely convincing to back up your arguments either way, but rather you all seem to be claiming that you have the moral high ground and thus aren't required to back up your statements in any way.

The CSIRO has recently released an assesment of Australia's changing climate, which may interest those of you who have an interest in the topic beyond the joys of abusing people and repeating the same unsubstatiated statements ad nauseam.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3j6.html

Key findings for the lazy:

The key findings of this report includes that by 2030, temperatures will rise by about 1 ºC over Australia – a little less in coastal areas, and a little more inland - later in the century, warming depends on the extent of greenhouse gas emissions. If emissions are low, warming of between 1 ºC and 2.5 ºC is likely by around 2070, with a best estimate of 1.8 ºC. Under a high emission scenario, the best estimate warming is 3.4 ºC, with a range of 2.2 ºC to 5 ºC.

Further, the report indicates there will be changes in temperature extremes, with fewer frosts and substantially more days over 35 ºC.

It also predicts that decreases in annual average rainfall are likely in southern Australia - rainfall is likely to decrease in southern areas during winter, in southern and eastern areas during spring, and along the west coast during autumn. For 2030, there will be little annual rainfall change in the far north.

As with temperature, the report indicates that rainfall projections for later in the century are more dependent on greenhouse gas emissions. Under a low emission scenario in 2070, the best estimate of rainfall decrease is 7.5 per cent. Under a high emission scenario the best estimate is a decrease of 10 per cent.

The report indicates that although there will be more dry days, when it does rain, rainfall is likely to be more intense.

Other findings include:

-droughts are likely to become more frequent, particularly in the south-west
-evaporation rates are likely to increase, particularly in the north and east
-high-fire-danger weather is likely to increase in the south-east
-tropical cyclones are likely to become more intense
sea levels will continue to rise.




By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 10:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone can throw out "guesstimates" what will happen in 30 or 50 years.

But the topic of discussion was to prove that humans are the cause of global warming. I dont think anyone is questioning that the average temperature increased 1 degree in the last 100 years (oh my god, run for the hills!), but are questioning the liberal perspective that is it true without scientific proof.

Typical liberal stance on something like this is: A)its true, or B)it needs more research.....

Never succombing to the fact that it just may not be true at all, regardless of lack of evidence.


By dug777 on 10/2/2007 11:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Untrue theories drown under the weight of evidence to the contrary, unless they are unimportant enough to be ignored or too difficult to prove/disprove given current technology.

This particular theory may, or may not be true, but debate and research into it is pretty lively, and I'm not sure that your last statement adds anything to the process.

Taken one way, your comment could be read as suggesting that any further research into the matter is completely unnecessary, we know all we need to know to put any anthropogenic link to bed once and for all, and to say with absolute certainty that climate change won't have any significant effects on people accross the globe...


Global warming
By AlmostExAMD on 10/2/2007 6:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
2009 prize drawn, Planet still be here then or what, underwater perhaps(sarcasm).




RE: Global warming
By djkrypplephite on 10/2/2007 6:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
i'd be more worried about 2012.


Earth 1, Humans 0
By Hieyeck on 10/3/2007 3:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
Estimated world human emissions in 2006: 27 million metric tonnes
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_... )

Estimated crap spewed forth by the greatest eruption on recorded history (1883): 25 cubic kilometers of poisonous ash, burning rock, and pumice (if it was water, it would be 25 million metric tonnes, and i think we can agree that ash, pumice and rock is heavier than water and the total weight would be MUCH heavier than 25 million tonnes). Massive tracts of coastal forests and jungles (carbon sinks) levelled by the following tsunamis.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa )

Admittedly, eruptions on that kind of scale don't happen every year, but if we total up everything that DOES happen in a year (random eroptions - above and BELOW the water, flow, carbon sinks destroyed by disasters, etc. etc.), it's more than likely the good ol' planet Earth wins out.




RE: Earth 1, Humans 0
By Justin Case on 10/7/2007 8:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
The matter isn't whether Earth "wins" or not. Ultimately, humans are part of the Earth too (it's precisely the notion that we're somehow immune from the fate of the Earth that is dangerous).

The matter is whether climate is changing in ways that are harmful to human life (and society, and economy, etc) in the long run, and whether or not we can change that.

Ice ages may be "natural" but I definitely wouldn't want to live through one. If we want to survive as a species, in the long term, we have to learn to control our climate, regardless of what is causing it to change (industry, volcanos, the sun, bug spray, whatever).

PS. I'm not sure I can agree that pumice is heavier than water, no. Anyway, your "calculations" are so simplistic they're meaningless.


What? That's it?
By Polynikes on 10/2/2007 11:39:26 AM , Rating: 2
Only $125k? That's like giving Galileo $5 for proving the Earth isn't the center of the universe. A major scientific breakthrough like that deserves a little more, IMO.




correlation
By tigz1218 on 10/2/2007 11:45:43 AM , Rating: 2
Correlation does not mean causation. A lot of noobs forget that.




I'm enjoying it
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/2/2007 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
so far i'm loving this global warming. Here it has been nice 70-80 degree weather when it should be colder. Clear skys. Lots of sun (sun is proven to be healthy - creates vit D.)

Good weather so far. I don't hear many people complaining besides the media and extremist from both parties.

by the way, the polar bear at the zoo is still alive.

bring on this global warming i'm lovin it! :D




By Justin Case on 10/2/2007 11:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
From the "rules":

quote:
the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms


In other words, not only don't they give a clear definition of what constitutes "proof", but they even reserve the right to reinterpret their own rules.

Then they add:

quote:
All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC.


So they're excluding all pre-existing work in this area and all ongoing work that wasn't "produced specifically for the UGWC". In other words, you're expected to do all the research from scratch specifically for their "contest" (and then hope that they won't "reinterpret" the rules to make sure you don't win).

Oh, and, of course:

quote:
Entrants waive all rights and claims against JunkScience.com


Anyone who is able to win a contest with these "rules" should automatically win James Randi's $1M prize as well, because (s)he clearly has supernatural powers.




Hand me my money
By soxfan on 10/3/2007 7:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming has made Al Gore popular. A popular Al Gore is bad. Thus, global warming is bad.

That will be $125,000 please.




$125,000?
By AlphaVirus on 10/3/2007 2:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
Ok a $15 entry fee is fine because that will keep all the stupids out. They increased the prize from $100,000 to 125,000, is this really a prize amount for a million dollar investment?
Manpower, equipment, time, etc will cost well over $125,000 and I would find it insulting if I was trying to prove something this major and someone said "Heres 125,000 for proving such a major discovery"

As far as global warming, of course its a reality. Not only are the climate changes noticable but look at the pattern of hurricanes, tornadoes, volcano erruptions, and all of mother natures beauties.




dfgfd
By ThisIsAScam on 10/5/2007 12:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
dfgfdg




Some junk
By crystal clear on 10/2/2007 9:36:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
JunkScience.com just issued a bounty of $125,000 to anyone able to demonstrate that human-induced climate-change is a threat to the planet.


$125,000 to anyone able to demonstrate

They can get a live demonstration.

Yes go & stay in CHINA or INDIA (in major industrial towns & cities) for 3 to 6 months and experience it yourself.

Now where is the prize money............oh I did not pay the entry fee..........so I am disqualified....as per the rules of the competition.




$15 entry fee?
By Samus on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: $15 entry fee?
By Mithan on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: $15 entry fee?
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 7:07:24 AM , Rating: 4
See my view on it is this. Is the world warming up? Yes. Are humans causing it? No. Perhaps we've made it get a little warmer than it would if we weren't here, but we're not the majority cause, if at all. Why do I think this? Scientists are also showing that the temperature on Mars and even Pluto has risen (ok i doubt we can reliably tell if the temperature on Pluto has risen but Mars we've got probes there).

Is mankind also responsible for those planets warming up? Damn those solar powered robots. No. The Sun is outputting more heat than it has in the past.

All these environmentalists all talk about how much CO2 we're dumping in that atmosphere. What they never mention is the amount of CO2 nature itself dumps there. Volcanoes, forest fires, hell cows farting(methane but still).

That all said. Should we not strive to work toward a world of clean energy generation and taking care of the environment? Of course we should. There's no reason not to. Because yes, eventually our planet will run out of resources. And I'd like to think the human race will continue for the next 1000 years.

Regardless of what hardcore religious zealots think, our planet has been here far longer than we have. So to think that the observations of a mere 100 years or so can be the basis of what is happening with our planet is just plain retarded. Nature works in cycles. We see that yearly with the seasons. What makes people think the sun is any different. Except its cycles last thousands if not tens of thousands of years.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 8:03:42 AM , Rating: 4
Just in case anyone didnt realize, I was just having a bit of fun with this topic for my replublic beliefs. That quote was courtesy of Ann Coulter - a hardcore conservative who is quite the comedian.

Im sure that alot of things we do arent helping the planet. And yes, we are responsible for 25% of the emissions - or so "they" say - but the problem is the other big players are too - India & China.

We cannot put aside our economy to fix global warming. If all three big players were to work together, id be all for it. But we cant dump our economy to "save the whales", "save the trees", "...ozone", etc.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By LogicallyGenius on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By mikeyD95125 on 10/2/2007 6:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
Woops

already down rated the first post

little trigger happy today :)


RE: $15 entry fee?
By xsilver on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: $15 entry fee?
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 8:37:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
a look at the graphs will show that there is a sharp rise, unlike anything we've seen before.


Yes we've never seen it before. But we've only been keeping records of temperatures for about the past 100 years. How is that any kind of reference? The Earth has been here for billions of years. We have a recorded history only dating back 4000 years. Yet with 100 years worth of data, you act like you have all the facts. Soil samples and what not have shown dramatic climate shifts before we were ever around.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By chsh1ca on 10/2/2007 9:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
That's the problem with this whole contest. There simply isn't enough data for it to be "winnable" to anyone.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By buckao on 10/2/2007 9:49:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's the problem with this whole contest. There simply isn't enough data for it to be "winnable" to anyone.


I think that's the point this contest is trying to make...


RE: $15 entry fee?
By murphyslabrat on 10/2/2007 2:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. I just entered my solution, which I feel-after much consideration-to be perfectly sound and provable. What is the only common denominator in theories of global warming? it is humanity. So, on that vein, I took it a bit farther: the biggest detriment to global temperatures is not any invention or activity of mankind, but it is humanity itself.

Think about it. People complained about Pentium 4's being space-heaters, so what about people. All six billion of us have to count for an insane increase in temperature, as we are the only net-increasing species. Furthermore, this problem is readily fixable: mix flu-shots with cyanide, and viola: problem fixed.

As a short-term fix, you could just eradicate the hottest humans-politicians, salesmen, lawyers, PR-Reps, CEO's-all of the people that are full of hot air. The other 5 billion of us can just deal with the temps, and hope for something better.

And no, I really did not submit this, that $15 entry fee is keeping me away.

P.S. As an afterthought, there is another large cause: P4's and Athlon XP's! Get rid of all of them, and we could all be hunky-dory. We could even keep our lawyers, and use them to sue Intel and AMD for new-computer money.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Spuke on 10/2/2007 5:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All six billion of us have to count for an insane increase in temperature,
Nice! LOL!


RE: $15 entry fee?
By kyp275 on 10/2/2007 9:16:24 AM , Rating: 3
correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the ice samples they take from greenland and the artics recorded temperatures that goes back for... quite a bit more than a few hundred or thousand years :P


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Mordakk on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: $15 entry fee?
By flutedude2005 on 10/3/2007 12:12:19 AM , Rating: 1
but lets remember, that 1.5 millions years is more than enough time to measure the effects humans have had on the environment. if we've supposedly been causing mass pollution since the industrial revolution, well...the 1,499,800 year prior to then covers what i'm sure is well...a pretty consistent output of global warming factors.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By sviola on 10/2/2007 9:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
You're right. But they stands for up to a few million years. There's a nice sample in the NY Natural History Museum. And it's inside a device that let's you see the data related to each part of the ice as you move along it. :)


RE: $15 entry fee?
By clovell on 10/2/2007 11:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
Those are proxy measurements, and they usually can give us a rough estimate of the average temperature during a window of time. They are used by models to estimate the temperature of a particular time. Other factors affect these models, so you've got to take these measurements not only with a grain of salt, but also with a generous helping of context.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By sviola on 10/2/2007 9:22:30 AM , Rating: 2
You do know that is possible to determine the temperatures for much over 100 years, don't you? If you have the time, go to NY Natural History Museum, there are explanations on how scientist can determine approximate temperature using ice from the poles (data that goes pack to a few million years - I think about 2 or 3 - and that is good enough timespan).

Yes, earth has had hot and cold times, but if heat goes up too fast, nature will give it's payback...and you can already see that: tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, massive desertification, among other issues. If you don't believe, In NY, in the middle winter - beggining of January - it was hot and people went jogging in Central Park in shorts and T-shirts (temp were around 20o C). Europe had temperatures around 25o C in the same time.

Scientists have been speaking about this for the last 25 years and even then, most of the americans couldn't care less. Well, the situation has only worsened and will get even worse. So, I hope you (americans) start changing your mind or we all will be really screwed.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: $15 entry fee?
By sviola on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 10:11:42 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately the economy doesn't work like that. If we are the only one out of the big three - China, India, US - to put down major restrictions on companies then guess what? We will be the ones to suffer, and out people will be out of jobs - even more than they are now - while our companies will move and start hiring even more cheap labor from China and India because not only is the labor cheaper, its cheaper to operate due to environmental constrictions.

So if the unproven environmental "issues" are so important to you that you want to risk our entire economy for it, then I hope you have a backup plan of building a dirt hut in the state park to live in...because we'll all be out of jobs.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By blaster5k on 10/2/2007 11:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
Very good point. We're pretty screwed if developing countries aren't putting the same restrictions in place.

Based on everything I've read, I don't think it's a good idea to be screwing with our atmospheric composition, but climate change is a complicated issue with many variables -- not all of which are fully understood. We could have an asteroid impact, large volcanic eruptions, or other natural events that trigger cooling and it is possible that the extra greenhouse gases might even come in handy, but you just never know. If we destroyed our standard of living (and people died off as a result) to cut emissions and we guessed wrong.... whoops?

Still, I think the safe route is to limit emissions, even though it's most likely too little too late. Kyoto isn't going to cut it. Wind and solar power aren't going to cut it. We'd need a complete shift to nuclear power like today along with fuel cell or battery powered vehicles. We'd need to kill off most of our livestock and deal without hamburgers. Oh, and people need to stop making babies so the population stays in check. Then the temperature will likely rise only a few more degrees and stabilize (assuming other factors do not come into play).

We'll adapt to a warmer planet if need be. It might suck a little, but I don't see any realistic way that we can do anything to stop it -- no, the answer is not driving a Prius. We'd need some much more significant technological breakthroughs.

Despite all the damage we've done to the planet, we've significantly increased our standard of living, lifespan, and population capacity. Nobody's going to sacrifice that to reduce emissions.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By clovell on 10/2/2007 11:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
There is no proof that natural disasters have increased as a result of AGW.

Yes, our government says no. And thank the Lord - my ancestors fought for a free capitalistic America, not some Environmental Socialist State based on the political platform du jour (that's to say that the majority of this debate has nothing to do with science).

A free market will embrace efficiency on its own - without the help of further government intervention.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 9:32:48 AM , Rating: 2
key words in what you said: Approximate, meaning not exact and mistakes could easily be made. Poles, meaning temperature at one specific point not on the whole earth scale. "Good enough" meaning nowhere near accurate but we'll just say it works for the sake of our argument.

The earth is not fragile. Human life is. The earth can easily fight massive problems thrown at it. Gigantic asteriod causes mass extinction pushing the earth into an ice age. 65 million years later one insignificant form of life thinks they are causing it to heat up beyond control and that they will kill it. Guess what, we'll die off long before this planet does. Well, unless the sun goes nova. Then we'll just die.

(2 million out of 4.5 billion still isn't very much)


RE: $15 entry fee?
By sviola on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 10:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it has done more in the last 200 years to heaten the planet than the nature in the 50000 years before


Yeah... sure... 1 degree vs coming in and out of an ice age. Definately more. and by the way, "heaten" is not a word.

And don't talk to me about engineering. I am an engineer. Yup, things are built with an error tolerance. That means that they are made to work, even if someone screw up. Not that they are designed to work with errors.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By maven81 on 10/2/2007 4:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
While I don't necessarily agree with the supporters of global warming, I think you're taking this too far.
I doubt anyone is seriously saying that the planet will be destroyed. I think what we are talking about here is the environment and the biosphere. And humans have most definitely demonstrated that they can have an effect here. Whether it's introducing new species to places they previously didn't exist (causing massive populations of whatever since there are no predators), hunting species almost to extinction, or rerouting rivers to bring water to some areas while taking it away from others, etc. I don't think anyone will dispute that we have had an effect here, so it's not crazy to assume that we're having some effect on the climate as well. Whether it's a little or a lot, good or bad, that's definitely debatable, but you can't say with total certainty that humans are insignificant.

You also need to brush up on your astronomy and biology... while the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, life has existed for only a fraction of that, and I think we're mostly interested in how this may impact life, not the rock that we live on. Like you said, we could disappear and the earth would still be around.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By porkpie on 10/2/2007 10:36:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but "tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, desertification" are ALL not increasing. To say "one can already see" bad side effects is false.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By murphyslabrat on 10/2/2007 1:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are explanations on how scientist can determine approximate temperature using ice from the poles

Which, of course, relies on theories. Theories are, definitionally, unproven. So, even the scope of time covered could be wrong, let alone the actual data interpreted. What if there was a meteor that struck (or even came near, leaving debris to impact earth), or what if there was a nearby volcanic eruption? The circumstances themselves are are unknown, and, therefore, such information cannot be assumed to be 100% accurate. It is the best we have, and therefore must be considered accurate for the sake of theories that can be verified with other means; but it is out of the question to assume it as proof of a theory, e.g. that earth is warming up due to Humanity's industrialization.
quote:
Yes, earth has had hot and cold times, but if heat goes up too fast, nature will give it's payback...and you can already see that: tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, massive desertification, among other issues.

Global warming also creates additional heat, which is apparently addling your brain. How do we know? 'Cause I say so.

Just because the heat is rising, does not mean that it is "too fast." Also, as far as I know, there is no proof that there is an inordinate amount of natural disasters. You can say "Hurricane Katrina pwned New Orleans"; but it was part of the normal hurricane season, which happened to be a little more severe-for two years.
quote:
If you don't believe, In NY, in the middle winter - beggining of January - it was hot and people went jogging in Central Park in shorts and T-shirts (temp were around 20o C). Europe had temperatures around 25o C in the same time.

You are telling me that every single day of winter, it was about 70-80 degrees Fahrenheit? Because, otherwise, this would be one of what we call "abnormal temperature spikes", and could not be considered a trend. Just because there was a warm winter does not mean that it is an expected trend.

On a side-note, last winter was one of the coldest on record, and even October was the 31st coldest so far.

quote:
Well, the situation has only worsened and will get even worse.

Yeah, you're right: energy is expensive, gasoline is exorbitant, emissions-testing is brutal, industrial regulations are handicapping, etc. The situation is bad because environmental activists affect "awareness". This "awareness" leads to restrictions, regulations, and "protective" taxes. While I am not in the least crying for environmental apathy, the role of humanity in the environmental "changes" being observed has never been coherently (as in, without foaming mouths and with sound evidence) proven. And, I am not saying that all environmentalists are whack-jobs who need to be burned at a stake. What I am saying is that before we take action that ends up costing trillions of dollars per year-for government, corporations, and the consumer- we need to more fully evaluate the effects of the "problem."

Yes, it does boil down to Economy vs. Ecosystem, but my point is that no one, excepting Al Gore, knows for sure that humanity is causing any harm to the environment. We are 99.9% sure that we have effected change on the environment through the processing of fossil fuels, however, the magnitude and benignity of those effects are, as far as I know, a mystery.

A bit big to be called "two cents", so I'll settle for "my half-dollar"


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2007 3:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
more like $2.50


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Keeir on 10/2/2007 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, earth has had hot and cold times, but if heat goes up too fast, nature will give it's payback...and you can already see that: tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, massive desertification, among other issues


#1. Global Warming causes Earthquakes now?!?!?!?!

#2. Any link to Hurricanes is unproven

#3. Massive Desertification?!?!? I think you will find that other causes are more to blame for increasing deserts than Global Warming including poor farming/land management and poor water management

quote:
If you don't believe, In NY, in the middle winter - beggining of January - it was hot and people went jogging in Central Park in shorts and T-shirts (temp were around 20o C). Europe had temperatures around 25o C in the same time.


I would like to point out, that even 15-20 years ago, I remember weeks in Feb. and Mar. where temps were 70-80F. I also remember 10-15 years ago, years when it snowed in April and October (during the day) and even 5 years ago cleaning frost off my car window at 6am even in May. I lived in an area fairly close to NYC. The truth is that for as long as I can remember, there have been many years of strange weather and its very possible to have years where there are times in winter where it is very cold and very warm. My personal experience has been that Summers are getting wetter and colder and Winters dryer and warmer...

Lastly


RE: $15 entry fee?
By PlasmaBomb on 10/2/2007 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nature will give it's payback...and you can already see that: tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, massive desertification, among other issues. If you don't believe, In NY, in the middle winter - beggining of January - it was hot and people went jogging in Central Park in shorts and T-shirts (temp were around 20o C). Europe had temperatures around 25o C in the same time.


First you are talking like nature is a person. Second 2006 and 2007 have been quite mild regarding hurricanes. Third the middle of winter was February not the start of January. Fourth the only places locally (Europe) above 25 degrees Celsius in January are old peoples homes and saunas.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By PlasmaBomb on 10/2/2007 5:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Scientists have been speaking about this for the last 25 years and even then


In the 1970's there was indeed concern over climate change, however scientists were worried about global cooling...


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Mordakk on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By AnnihilatorX on 10/2/2007 10:12:11 AM , Rating: 2
Your post makes no sense. Because we just have a small snapshot of record on temperatures of the age of the earth, we can't identify the root cause of global warming?

Also, incidents often involve more than one cause. I surely do not believe that human has caused no warming. If you deny on responsibility on even a small contribution, that to me is absurd.

Ice samples gave us temperature readings for over a million years based on isotope distribution.

General public tend to overlook on amount of theory, simulations, debates went into modelling the cause of global warming. Last time I recalled the increased sun activity alone does not account for all the heating. I rather trust a peer-reviewed scientist than a politician or economist.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By acer905 on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By xsilver on 10/2/2007 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
You say I act like I have all the facts, I DONT - but its not helpful to deny the fact that there are concerning numbers.

Its not a matter of debating the existence of human caused global warming anymore; only debating how much its going to cost and what can be done to minimize it.

So what if its natural - a meteor could strike NYC tomorrow, but because its natural we can ignore it?
But instead what's going to happen? congress is going to sanction billions of dollars on research to make sure we can do all we can from stopping it happening again, because we dont want to pay for it again.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 10:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
Again, i must say this. People could easily argue all day about if the earth is globally warming, or if its localized warming. About what is causing it and how to stop it. But this is the important question. How do we know that this is the best, the most perfect climate for this planet? That is what people should be asking, rather than accepting that some random year was perfect and that anything warmer than that or colder than that would be worse


RE: $15 entry fee?
By clovell on 10/2/2007 11:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what if its natural - a meteor could strike NYC tomorrow, but because its natural we can ignore it?
What the hell else are you gonna do, eh? I mean - if you can't stop it, what's the point?


RE: $15 entry fee?
By xsilver on 10/2/2007 8:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
ok one more attempt to try make sense of this...

are people saying that not even 1% of global warming is attributable to human activity?
eg. if the temperature rise is 3 degrees 100% of that is unequivocally all natural?

let me pose a different scenario; say an american built car is involved with a fatal crash in brazil. As an american do you feel responsible? I'll answer that, NO.
What if you're CEO of said car company? -- Still No?
What if as CEO of that car company and you knew that there was a defect with the car? -- Maybe YES now?
What if you were said driver of the other vehicle? - Definitley yes?
Its all about degrees of accountability.

What Im trying to get at is that its human nature to only worry about things that we can attribute to our cause and can fix. If this climate change is shrugged off as ALL natural, who is going to bother to research effective solutions or harm minimization strategies?
Once people are aware that they directly may be responsible for something, they will actively try to avoid causing it if its not too difficult. No one is saying that you should give up your car and cease to use electricity.
How about recycling? too difficult?
Turning off some appliances when not using them? still too difficult?
Walking 400m down to the corner store instead of driving?

Im not saying that the entire polar ice caps are going to melt and apocalyptic wrath will be upon us. There is a chance that hotter weather may actually be good for some parts of the world. However it might not be good everywhere and thats the problem; people are afraid of change and just prefer the status quo. If one country receives more favorable weather while other countries suffer is all we're meant to do just sit around and bicker?


RE: $15 entry fee?
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 8:52:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
eg. natural cycle predicts 10% change but 30% change is observed


And who came up with the "natural cycle"? Did God give the equations to someone? It's all theory based on the observations of a relatively small time period. We still can't even accurately predict hurricanes and tornadoes, but we're going to say we can predict how the entire planet has worked, does work, and will work?

100 years might be a lifetime for a human. But its nothing to a planet and insignificant relative to the universe.

As I said, I'm not against clean energy and what not. But I'm not so arrogant as to think that we are the all powerful beings some of us think ourselves to be. There are things bigger than us.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 9:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
Perspective, its a beautiful thing. Take one person. Put them next to the earth and compare their sizes. Then put the earth next to the sun and compare their sizes. Then put the sun next to the galaxy and compare their sizes. Then consider that we know of over 100,000 galaxies. How important then is that one person?


RE: $15 entry fee?
By rcc on 10/2/2007 12:38:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
with the methane gas and cows, who put the cows there? Are there naturally paddocks with thousands of cows waiting around? that counts as a human cause ok?


Maybe yes, maybe no. Replace them with the millions of buffalo/bison that used to roam the plains and the source is still there.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By MrPickins on 10/2/2007 2:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the vast herd of animals on the African plains.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 8:12:33 AM , Rating: 3
I like your view, but i feel i should add my view just as a supplement. Is the world warming up? In some places at least. Are we the cause? i seriously doubt it. But now for the most important question, is this the best climate for this planet? Who knows.

The people strongly pushing global warming picked a random year, and said that that is the base, and anything warmer than that is bad. You are very right, the planet is indeed quite old. Stretching back billions of years before it even thought of us. We really aren't that important no matter how arrogant some people are. That is precisely what this is about too. We believe that the earth's climate was somehow perfect 100 years ago and that its going to just get worse and worse. But its all based on a random benchmark date. I know a way to kill global warming. Change the fahrenheit scale so that its based off of, oh, lets say steel's melting point instead of waters. Then see how people react to such negative numbers all of a sudden.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 8:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rate you up if I could.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Mitch101 on 10/2/2007 9:59:35 AM , Rating: 2
Well said FitCamaro.

As George Carlin stated:

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!


RE: $15 entry fee?
By phusg on 10/2/2007 10:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, the planet isn't going anywhere, we'd have to do our utmost to destroy it even if we wanted to. The first sentence of the blog post by masher is misleading and shouldn't be interpreted literally.

The junkscience site itself talks about "social, economic and environmental effects". These are the effects we should be concerned with. Sure the planet itself won't be harmed, but do we really want another mass extinction of species and habitat, mass genocides from wars and natural disasters caused in no small part by mismanagement of the Earth's resources by us humans?

Those are the really important questions which look likely to start effecting us in the next 50-500 years. The largely molten rock of the Earth itself will do just fine until the Sun swells to swallow it up in about 5000000000 years, that's a red herring when discussing human impact.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Mitch101 on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 11:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
Typical swinging liberal statement with absolutely no scientific evidence to back up.

Im really glad that everyone does not have that point of view right now or we'd really be in trouble.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Mitch101 on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 12:32:12 PM , Rating: 3
Thats the point - dont do things and act like you're doing me a favor. I'm all for alternative fuels, helping the world, etc. But im more concerned with our economy, keeping americans employed, and maintaining our democracy ...

rather than the socialist approach of making everyone cut back & be on a level playing field.

Dont get me wrong, i think its great that you are making steps to do what you think will help the environment. but dont act like anyone owes you anything for it.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/2/2007 1:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
Of course we are superior to dinosaurs...As you said, "they lived for millions of years and yet we may possibly bring ourselves to extinction in only a fraction of the time." Well let me ask you this, do you think that was easy??? :)
Also, the dinosaurs did not bring themselves to extinction; they had help from an asteroid, comet, or something that made a quick change to their environment.
The only thing we have in common with dinosaurs is roaches…They off’ed the dinosaurs and now they are coming after us. If we rid the world of roaches the global warming problem will magically disappear.

Has any noticed that they temperature of the Sun is a little hotter the past few decades verse 100 years ago…I understand temperature is no the same on the sun all the time it will change just like a camp fire temp. will change. I understand it’s have a lot of solar flare issues lately, sending out more heat than in the past. So, maybe the fact that the big fire in the sky is a little hotter this century than last century might have something to do with the current environment conditions???


RE: $15 entry fee?
By MrPickins on 10/2/2007 2:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
"My friend says we're like the dinosaurs
Only we are doing ourselves in
Much faster than they
Ever did.
We'll make great pets!"


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Snuffalufagus on 10/3/2007 4:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
and the technological advances of those wonderful beasts were amazing :)! If we just walked around eating, pooping, breeding, and killing the weak we might last longer too, and 'maybe' we'd enjoy life a lot more if it were not as comparatively complicated as it is today. Too bad that's not the reality of the modern world and we as the human race tend to strive to change and 'hopefully' better things. In the face that environmental changes are inevitable we are far better equipped to deal with the changes than any predecessors.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Polynikes on 10/2/2007 11:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
So, instead of people getting alarmed about what we're doing to the planet, we should be alarmed that the sun is slowly frying us to death.

Now that's scary.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Go charge the sun with murder then. Why not? A guy is suing God at the moment in the US to prove how flawed our legal system is. I'm sure you're find a lawyer who'll take the case.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By encryptkeeper on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By Hoeser on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 8:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
OMG - run! Oh no you cant, you'll slip because you're on ice and it wont melt that fast.

And lets not start this whole theory that all the ice in the world is going to melt in the next 50 years. Because other studies show that the anarctic shelf is actually gaining ice. Either way, you liberals are silly when it comes to this topic that global warming is more important than our economy.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 9:08:04 AM , Rating: 1
Mind if i add an extra thought. Even if, by some odd chance, all the ice does melt and the ocean level does rise up... here's an idea. Move. Ya know that movie, Waterworld, its never gonna happen. There is nowhere near enough ice anywhere. (oh and keep in mind that ice is less dense than water so it actually takes up less space in liquid form)

So basically stop complaining and move off the freaking coast


RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 9:18:00 AM , Rating: 3
LOL. But that would involve Hillary selling her beach house?!


RE: $15 entry fee?
By acer905 on 10/2/2007 9:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
So? sell that one, buy a new one off the coast a bit and just wait for the ocean to catch up with ya!


RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 9:37:52 AM , Rating: 2
I can picture Hillary buying a new "soon to be" beach house in Massachussets....standing 10 ft away from the edge....with her evil laugh.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By bhieb on 10/2/2007 10:04:10 AM , Rating: 3
No, be sure not to tell her and let her stay :)


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Hoeser on 10/2/2007 9:48:29 AM , Rating: 3
What what if I can't find dry land and get attacked by nicotine addicts on crude-oil powered jet skis?


RE: $15 entry fee?
By phusg on 10/2/2007 10:34:53 AM , Rating: 2
Of course communities can move away from the coast. But what about the social, economic en environmental cost of moving? In the Netherlands an estimated 10 million people (2/3 of the population) live within a couple of meters of sea level. You want us to move an entire country rather than deal with the cause of the problem? If your house is too warm then do move to another or turn down the thermostat?


RE: $15 entry fee?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/2/2007 11:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
> "You want us to move an entire country rather than deal with the cause of the problem?"

Netherlands is an excellent example of why sea level rise won't be a problem. Over a quarter of the country is *already* below sea-level, as much as 23 feet below, in fact.

Now, we're only expected to see another 24 inches of sea rise over the next 100 years. So, if Netherlands, with 1930s-era dyke technology, can survive (indeed, thrive) being up to 23 feet underwater, are you really trying to suggest the country, with 22nd-century technology, will be threatened by another 24 inches?


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Strunf on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: $15 entry fee?
By clovell on 10/2/2007 12:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
This may just be arguing semantics, but that technology was from 20th century and if I'm understanding you correctly - the city of New Orleans flooded because the levees were not built to specifications and failed - not because of the indominidable will of water.

Oh, and where is that water now?


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Strunf on 10/3/2007 11:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
You’re not arguing over semantics you’re just pulling what ever suits you…

Basically you admit that a company built something for the government and this one didn’t even check if it was up to the specs… and what makes you think that in 100 years things will be any different?... you can use any scapegoat you wish the fact is that one of the most developed countries in the world wasn’t up to the task of dominating the elements, and chances are we (and not just the US) still won’t be up to it in 100 years from now.

The fact is that no technology is error free, and things get even more complicated when economics come to play.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By clovell on 10/3/2007 11:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
No, I was too generous, it's not semantics, it's a fact - the levees in New Orleans were built in the 20th century. I also didn't admit anything about the company - it's a fact that the levees weren't built to specifications, and I never contested that fact. Furthermore, I'm not using a scapegoat - your reference to the government's late response was obviously a reference to Katrina - you just didn't seem to want to be explicit about it.

My point was that New Orleans pumped out that water over 2 years ago and is well on its way to rebuilding. Coastal restoration projects have been ramped up, as well. And, if we can get people to do their jobs right, we've got a much better chance of making it through another Katrina.

Personal jabs aside, you have a point. We can increase technology all we want, but as long as we use the lowest bidder, we'll have a weak link. But, that doesn't mean we can't do it.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By phusg on 10/2/2007 12:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
No I'm not, that's you putting words into my mouth.

And BTW we stopped using 1930's dyke technology in the 1930's. Nowadays we use 21st century dyke technology. In the 22nd century we'll be using, you guessed it, 22nd century dyke technolgy. There really is no other way to keep out the water. Pump out whatever flows into and falls on the country and wall out the sea.
quote:
Now, we're only expected to see another 24 inches of sea rise over the next 100 years.

Sure we can probably just about handle another 24 inches. Can you guarantee that's all it will be?!?

It is generally accepted that were Greenland to melt the sea level would rise by 7 meters. This is a distinct possibility in the not too distant future. What technology do you foresee that could allow us to keep out more than 7 yards of sea?!?


RE: $15 entry fee?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/2/2007 12:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "And BTW we stopped using 1930's dyke technology in the 1930's."

The point is that 1930's era tech was enough to allow the nation to remain below sea level. Technology available in the year 2100 will certainly be far better, meaning you can keep out more water, cheaper, easier, and safer.

> "Sure we can probably just about handle another 24 inches. Can you guarantee that's all it will be"

Sea level has been steadily rising for the past 7,000 years. Even if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were zero, Netherlands is going to wind up further and further below sea level.

> "What technology do you foresee that could allow us to keep out more than 7 yards of sea?!? "

Err, you already have areas in Netherlands 7 yards below sea level. A 7 yard rise isn't predicted for at least another 1,000 years.

Are you trying to tell me that Netherlands could stop 7 yards of water in 1930, but couldn't stop 14 yards of water in the year 2930?

Honestly, don't you think this sky-is-falling mentality has gone far enough? The problem really isn't that serious....even for extreme cases like your country, already largely below sea level.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By phusg on 10/3/2007 3:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you trying to tell me that Netherlands could stop 7 yards of water in 1930, but couldn't stop 14 yards of water in the year 2930?


No, that's you putting words in my mouth again.

Listen, you have to understand that the limited area that is 7 yards below sea level already is inland and not on the coast. The Dutch coast on the whole naturally rises up to sea level, so to 'reclaim' the land that is below sea level basically all that was needed was to pump out the water that was on the inside. Given that the land along the coast is only just above sea level, and consists largely of sand, a more than 7 yard rise in sea levels would obviously (to me at least) be far from desirable.

It may not even be technically impossible to hold more than 7 yards of sea back, but the Dutch coast is hundreds of kilometres long, so I think it's far from feasible. Imagine how much water pressure you would have to hold back normally, let alone during springs tides and/or storms!!!


RE: $15 entry fee?
By Ringold on 10/2/2007 1:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But what about the social, economic en environmental cost of moving?


If we detach emotionalism from the matter it becomes easy.

Social cost? If the Netherlands ceases to exist, I suppose that's a cost, but the EU is rapidly making national borders mean less and less.

Environmental cost? The ocean would be taking back area you stole from it, and go far enough back and Europe was probably on the sea floor anyway having just bubbled out of inner Earth. I don't see it.

Ah, and economic cost. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I am absolutely certain a much larger exodus than your tiny 10 million has taken place in the United States over a much, much shorter period of time from North to South and West. What was the driver, you may wonder? Snow, job availibility, and personal preference. The cost? None in our case. Citizens moving elsewhere and becoming more economically productive is a net gain. In the case of Europe it'd be very small.

We're talking about incremental changes over centuries. Even moving a billion people as the oceans rise a centimeter at a time isn't going to be breaking any budgets. This assumes one critical situation, which is unlikely to occur in Europe: allowing the free market to set home and property insurance rates. As it becomes too expensive to live in an area (what with the ocean in the front yard), people will move back. Slowly, painlessly.

Clog up the mechanism with subsidies and you get Florida; massive coastal development due to individuals not facing the true risk associated with their decisions to live and build there, and a possible future fiscal disaster.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By tallredeye on 10/3/2007 4:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You want us to move an entire country rather than deal with the cause of the problem?


Deal with the problem, locally. Don't impact the world economy because of your unique situation. It would also be cheaper.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By FITCamaro on 10/2/2007 10:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well hold on now. That kind of attitude is retarded as well. Our economy does depend on our environment. If the world is unlivable, it doesn't really matter what the Dow is at or how much money you have.

All I'm saying is that the world is warming naturally. Now maybe it will get very hot to the point where our way of life is affected drastically. But I don't think there's anything we can do about it other than adapt. Regardless of what we do, the planet will do as it pleases. I'm all for erring on the side of caution. But I don't think that cars are evil and that we should stop our economy just to satisfy some liberals who are trying to get some attention. We should gradually shift over to clean energy, the sooner the better for all. I have no problem with hydrogen cars (electric cars are not the way to go), nuclear power, recycling, etc.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By mdogs444 on 10/2/2007 10:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well hold on now. That kind of attitude is retarded as well. Our economy does depend on our environment. If the world is unlivable, it doesn't really matter what the Dow is at or how much money you have.


I understand, and im not saying that the environment is not important. Im all for alternative fuels, helping to cut emissions, etc But -

1. Out world is completely livable
2. Forcing US companies to adhere to much stricter standards than in other countries will do not but drive those companies to function elsewhere instead of the US. It will cause company operating costs to increase, prices to increase, and people to lose many jobs. I dont think all of that is worth trying to help a fight for global warming and whatnot when none of if has been scientifically proven.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By James Holden on 10/2/2007 6:43:02 AM , Rating: 5
Probably to prevent the vast majority of idiots to submit nonsensical entries.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By robert5c on 10/2/2007 7:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
thats what i'm thinking too...

i'm sure theres alot of bored or upset because they know the truth kids out there wishing they could spam this site, but that would be bad for the competition, and well just plain stupid, so i applaud them for having a charge, and have seen it in many other giveaways as well.


RE: $15 entry fee?
By porkpie on 10/2/2007 10:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
They're charging the fee to keep hundrds of thousands of fanatics from trashing the entire contest with millions of fake entries of course.

Remember last year when a GW skeptic scientist started an online petition asking other like-minded scientists to sign on? The enviro-idiots quickly heard about it, and flooded it with so many fake signatures he had to shut it down.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki