I like that.

“It’s settled, there’s no question, no scientist believes…”

Prove it.

“That’s silly, there’s no such thing as absolute proof, it’s a ridiculous standard…”

THE QUESTION IS:

Is there sufficient proof that AGW is correct AND that the proposed solutions will have meaningful effect to justify the MASSIVE economic toll and dislocation and waste that will go along with the proposed solutions? Is there any guarantee that excluded 3rd-world nations won’t simply “take up the slack” in the carbon cycle?

In other words, should we assume that it’s “our fault” and punish ourselves (in the West, only, it seems) for it, or should we assume it’s a natural cycle and see what we can do to compensate for it, and stay on top of trends and changes so we can learn how to react?

‘Cause while it’s better to be proactive than reactive, if it’s mostly driven by the sun, there’s not a lot we can do to prevent it – but we can sure waste a lot of resources (that we need to compensate) in the process!

…the mechanism was proposed that increased solar activity drives away some of the cosmic ray particles…

I’ve seen it, and it’s an interesting theory. But there are no empirical, observed data from which the process can be modelled. It’s entirely theoretical, and–at least to some extent–observed temperature trends don’t correlate with what that theory would predict over the last few years.

I think there’s something to that theory, personally, but… it’s not quite there, yet.

I haven’t read it yet so here’s my initial summary of the cover story: the global warming disbelievers are paid by the eeevvvvilll corporations.

mram on August 7, 2007 at 4:09 PM

What ??? You mean the eeevvvvilll corporations are suppose to be paying me ? Are the rest of you guys getting paid and I’m not ? Now I’m really upset ! Where’s my check ?

Maxx,

The only thing I’m trying to say is that the contest is dubious, as are all contests of this kind. They rely on the dubious premise that a failure to win the contest is definitive evidence against whatever phenomena the contest is about.

Bill Ramey on August 7, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Sorry for all the snark Bill, I see what you are saying now and I agree. No doubt, Junkscience has stacked the deck high in it’s favor. They have set the bar so high that it would probably be unachievable even if global warming wasn’t a monstrous hoax.

No one will be winning this contest, that’s for sure. But it will serve to challenge all of those “true believers” in global warming. Perhaps some of the fully indoctrinated will see this and think… “well that shouldn’t be so hard to prove”. Ha ! So, if this contest motivates even a few of those types to do some independent thinking and research, then the contest will have served it’s purpose.

TheSitRep on August 7, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Hilarious. Someone might have warned the girls that it’s really, really cold up there…despite what they may have heard from Leo and George.

I saw the Swindle vid some months ago and got a good laugh. The GWHysterics claim to have debunked it, but I thought British scientists had Absolulte Moral Authority?

The Great Global Warming Swindle
eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 5:34 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
jihadwatcher on August 7, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Da same. Hope DaveS takes a look.

An intuitive hunch that its the sun based on anecdotal (though compelling) warming on a few solar bodies is nothing more than a hunch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

Go to 26:00 in the video for the scientific evidence that the sun drives the climate. If only this video was disseminated more widely.

Watch the whole video. It is damning.

There is no model so far that explains any mechanism by which the sun causes the observed warming…
DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Actually, in The Great Global Warming Swindle, the mechanism was proposed that increased solar activity drives away some of the cosmic ray particles which act as condensing surfaces for clouds, which are one of earth’s cooling forces. Thus, more solar activity, fewer clouds, more warming.

Except I don’t think that Mohammad ever said anything about Carbon credits.

The only thing I’m trying to say is that the contest is dubious, as are all contests of this kind. They rely on the dubious premise that a failure to win the contest is definitive evidence against whatever phenomena the contest is about.

You said “MIGHT BE”, not “proven”. Can you prove CO2 “greenhouse” is the cause?

No, I explicitly said it was ludicrous to demand that it be proven. I said that skeptics would benefit more by proposing a hypothesis (like the sun, which has been mentioned 428 times in this thread), and then explaining what MIGHT BE a mechanism by which the sun would have caused the warming. An intuitive hunch that its the sun based on anecdotal (though compelling) warming on a few solar bodies is nothing more than a hunch.

The greenhouse scientists have very complex models explaining the mechanisms behind the warming that they predict. There is no model so far that explains any mechanism by which the sun causes the observed warming.

I believe its the sun, primarily–I think it takes a moron, Ph.D. or none, to believe otherwise…it’s called common sense–but there is, thus far, no way to explain why.

Just sent you that Al Gore is claiming that large polluters are launching a global propaganda campaign

Newt in on the conspiracy I see

William Amos on August 7, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Fat Al learned something from 8 years with Billy Jeff: ignore your opponents’ arguments and instead attack their motives.

Now prove that [sun activity is] the cause.
DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM

DaveS, sorry to have to recap your previous comment again but

…the fact is that noone can actually say what the mechanism for the warming MIGHT BE aside from CO2 “greenhouse”.

You said “MIGHT BE”, not “proven”. Can you prove CO2 “greenhouse” is the cause?

There’s Global Warming on Mars, GW on Jupiter, GW on Neptune, GW on Neptune’s moon Triton, GW on Pluto, significant evidence that Earth temperature has correlated with sunspot activity.

I agree. Now prove that its the cause.

DaveS on August 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Don’t have to Dave… it’s the global warmers that are trying to foment all the hysteria and get into our pockets in the process…. the burden of proof is on them.

Hmmm, any theme there? Guess not.

eeyore on August 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Yes. There is a theme. Jupiter global warming – like that on Mars and Triton – have all advanced notably since 2000.

Thus it is clear that George Bush causes global warming. He hates cool globes almost as much as he hates Black people. Regardless of which globe you’re talking about, he’s gonna warm it.

That’s what you get for misunderestimating his power.

Alternate theory: Karl Rove is purposely causing Martian global warming as a smokescreen for Earth global warming. Google it.

There’s Global Warming on Mars, GW on Jupiter, GW on Neptune, GW on Neptune’s moon Triton, GW on Pluto, significant evidence that Earth temperature has correlated with sunspot activity.

I agree. Now prove that its the cause.

Consensus in science is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, the consensus of scientific opinion has frequently been wrong. Occasionally with horrifying results.

Exactly. Facts speak for themselves…nobody has to ‘vote’ on it.