Something about the eyes..............
I wonder what is the true education of this "scientist."
Something about the eyes..............
You can’t prove a negative.............
A more interesting challenge would be to prove AGW is real. All they have are an hypothesis and a theory which the scientist who conceived it said was invalid before his death, heavily rigged computer models, and the bought and paid for opinions of an academic cadre, very few of whom have degrees in the atmospheric sciences. We’re supposed to rely on the opinions of astronomers, physicists, biologists, and a divinity school flunk out and failed political candidate.
I would like if the climatologists who are the most vocal proponents of anthropomorphic global warming would be willing, if the technology existed, to significantly decrease atmospheric CO2 levels. Do they have enough confidence in their theories and computer modeling to actually feel comfortable altering the Earth’s atmosphere? Would they be confident in the outcome of such manipulation?
I’m going to guess that the answer is no.
Here's the lie-teller, and a sample from his blog. Climate Change Denial is the Moral Equivalent of Racism
Fishtank's note: This is what the agitator posted on his bolg.
Easy: Prove there is man-mad climate change.
They are the ones proposing the theory. The burden of proof remains on them.
All will be told simply, “You’re wrong. The consensus has been reached. All scientists are in agreement. Next.”
Is this guy even to stupid to know it’s impossible to prove a negative , not to mention even the very premise of the question is in doubt.
I am still awaiting scientific proof that man causes global warming. This guy could start by providing his proof. Then people could pick apart his proof and then send to a 3rd pty for review. He has it backwards. His ilk needs to prove global warming exists. The burden of proof is on them. Hard to prove a negative.
An impossible threshhold to meet! "A FACTOR???"..., whether additive or subtractive, humans are on earth and, A Priori, they must be A FACTOR in whatever occurs!
If he really said “use the scientific method” to disprove AGW, then he is not a real scientist.
“Catch this fart in a bottle and paint it green.” said the man to the evil genie, and trumpeted loudly.
No smoking hot spot1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Send me my $10k in cash or gold coins please, Dr. Keating.
I’ll give him $10,000 if he can PROVE man-made climate change.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The "fool" would be anyone attempting to provide such a proof. This is because human activity probably has been "a factor" leading to climate change. It is a question of degree.
The problem with this challenge is that what he suggests should be proven does not address the question of interest. The issue is whether human activity has been a leading factor in climate change. (Notice how his wording implies the prior statement.) This is the flawed assumption of those promoting the idea of AGW.
The reality is that those promoting AGW can't even prove that human activity is a significant factor in climate change.