Think climate change isn't man-made? Then PROVE it: Professor offers $30,000 reward for anyone who

originally posted by: neo96
Rather easy to prove climate change isn't man made.

The climate was changing on this rock long before man was ever 'born'.

Where's my prize ?

Not much of an answer. Like most people you have an opinion but do not really know. That being said we cannot afford to take a gamble if we are the cause of AGW..

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: neo96
Rather easy to prove climate change isn't man made.

The climate was changing on this rock long before man was ever 'born'.

Where's my prize ?

Not much of an answer. Like most people you have an opinion but do not really know. That being said we cannot afford to take a gamble if we are the cause of AGW..

And what about American Industry becoming bankrupt due to regulations other countries like China do not have?

Until there is worldwide consensus on industry standards it's pointless for the US to follow any.

originally posted by: neo96
Rather easy to prove climate change isn't man made.

The climate was changing on this rock long before man was ever 'born'.

Where's my prize ?

I can't believe your post got stars.

Rivers, streams, and lakes have all been flowing with water on this rock long before man was ever 'born'. I guess that means all the man-made rivers, streams, and lakes are not man-made after all?

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: neo96
Rather easy to prove climate change isn't man made.

The climate was changing on this rock long before man was ever 'born'.

Where's my prize ?

I can't believe your post got stars.

Rivers, streams, and lakes have all been flowing with water on this rock long before man was ever 'born'. I guess that means all the man-made rivers, streams, and lakes are not man-made after all?

So if someone told you rivers, lakes, and streams were Man-made and we need to spend billions stopping them what would you say?

a reply to: Denoli


I think it's a great challenge. Now we wait for answers.
That are not from the peanut gallery.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is so not true. We do not want China taking the lead on anything and right now they are.
The USA is an example for the world. We set the standards and the others follow. We are not the petulant child being brought up the rear, waiting for everyone else to do the right thing before we will. That isn't the USA. We lead.

originally posted by: mwood
You can't prove it, just as you can't prove it is.
It's easy to put your money up for something you know can't be proven.

I offer $50,000 if you can prove there is a GOD.

No opinions, or circumstantial evidence.......Solid proof that will make me believe.

Sorry mwood but unlike God, with statistics, charts and graphs, mans responsibility for global temperatures raising can be proved. This is why he can offer a reward, because they need to basically dis-prove what is already patently obvious to scientists.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And what about American Industry becoming bankrupt due to regulations other countries like China do not have? Until there is worldwide consensus on industry standards it's pointless for the US to follow any.

Who do you expect to pay for pollution. Countries like the US have already been through their industrial revolution. As one of the richest countries in the world you need to lead by example.

At the end of the day I would prefer to see countries going bankrupt as opposed to destroying the planet. Not that I really think the US will go bankrupt. You are a culture of people that can problem solve and come up with solutions.

Either way these problems need dealing with...Now..

purp

It's really dodgy to be required to prove a negative.

All the biology on the planet has an effect the climate, so do many other factors.
I is not true, or possible to prove that humans are the sole cause of climate change.
It is also hard to prove the extent that we a liable.

I do however think we should know better than pollute the natural environment.

Having feelings of guilt and anger over plumes of smoke being bellowing into the atmosphere,
and the pollution of the water,
is a good fall back position.

Regardless of where we are causing the climate blips,
we should stop polluting anyway as a gesture to the earth.

I do believe that the current dogma is more of a tax collection/ financial instrument conspiracy, that has no bearing on the fix.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
So if someone told you rivers, lakes, and streams were Man-made and we need to spend billions stopping them what would you say?

Your analogy doesn't hold.

Scientists are aware of the multiple natural forces that can cause climate change. They are also aware of the man-made forces that can cause climate change.

"Someone" is not proclaiming we must stop all natural and man-made forces that cause climate change. We are only concerned about the man-made forces that can/are causing climate change. We must stop, and or significantly reduce those man-made forces. We can't do anything about most of the natural ones really.

a reply to: WeAre0ne
These threads become a Brawndo style argument quick. Winning a debate will not change facts nor science.

Since the industrial revolution there has been a 40% rise in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. CO2 continues to rise at 20ppm per decade. Right now we are at 400ppm.

a reply to: jrod

Yes I am aware.

...and to add. Through scientific experiments in a lab, and through observation of other planets, we have proven that increased CO2 concentrations also increases radiative forcing.

There is no debate left.

First things first, I want his proof that climate change is man-made, If he can't provide it for me to debunk, then I win by default.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

I concur. The debate is over.

The only reason why I've wasted so much time on these threads is to hopefully get some facts out. It is simply incredible so many will jump on the science is cult spewing liberal propaganda bandwagon.

There is a pack of deniers in the other thread. They have been pulling out all the bells and whistles to denounce the 40% rise in CO2. If the consequences were not so grave I could laugh at their efforts.

280ppm to 400ppm is a 40% rise in CO2. That is elementary folks....

a reply to: jrod

I have a question...for anyone who can answer:

Do warmer oceans collect or release co2?

In other words, as oceans warm up do they release co2 or do they store it?

a reply to: bbracken677

The answer is: warming oceans release co2 that they had previously been storing.

Therefore if the earth (and oceans) are warming due to whatever reason, atmospheric co2 levels will rise.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
So if someone told you rivers, lakes, and streams were Man-made and we need to spend billions stopping them what would you say?

Your analogy doesn't hold.

Scientists are aware of the multiple natural forces that can cause climate change. They are also aware of the man-made forces that can cause climate change.

"Someone" is not proclaiming we must stop all natural and man-made forces that cause climate change. We are only concerned about the man-made forces that can/are causing climate change. We must stop, and or significantly reduce those man-made forces. We can't do anything about most of the natural ones really.

That's my point. Stopping man made rivers has dire consequences, and there is no evidence it will do anything. What about when Texas agrees but no other State does? Texas is destroying it's self for no gain.

If every country goes green I'm ok with it.

originally posted by: DonVoigt
First things first, I want his proof that climate change is man-made, If he can't provide it for me to debunk, then I win by default.

Scientists have proven it. There are literally thousands of reports, articles and the likes detailing the evidence they have for Man made global warming. Basically every scientist on earth is behind it except the few that are on the fossil fuel payrolls or would benefit if we did/do nothing about it.

You might say they don't have 100 % proof of it and I would say there isn't 100% proof of gravity either but we accept that as a basic fact of life. It's true, we did it, it's happening and we can do something about both it and it's effects.

a reply to: amazing

Actually the lead writer for GW jumped ship some years back (Richard Lindzen) and said they have nothing, not even an atmospheric model.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: bbracken677

The answer is: warming oceans release co2 that they had previously been storing.

Therefore if the earth (and oceans) are warming due to whatever reason, atmospheric co2 levels will rise.

Did you just ask, then answer your own question? Weird.

You are correct, when oceans warm up, their ability to retain CO2 decreases, and so they release CO2. That is the main concern for global climate change because it will cause a "positive feedback loop".

1: Humans release CO2 and warm the Earth and oceans.
2: The oceans ability to capture CO2 reduces, and the oceans release CO2.
3: CO2 release from the oceans warm the Earth more, and the oceans more.
4: Loop back to #1 and repeat.

It can cause the "runaway greenhouse effect" which is believed to have taken place on Venus.

en.wikipedia.org...