A Great Example of How The Climate Debate is Broken

A climate alarmist posts a “Bet” on a site called Truthmarket that she obviously believes is a dagger to the heart of climate skeptics.  Heck, she is putting up $5,000 of her own money on it.  The amazing part is that the proposition she is betting on is entirely beside the point.  She is betting on the truth of a statement that many skeptics would agree with.

This is how the climate debate has gone wrong.  Alarmists are trying to shift the debate from the key points they can’t prove to facile points they can.  And the media lets them get away with it.

Read about it in my post this week at Forbes.com

  • netdr

    The bet was:
    “Provide verifiable evidence that significantly less than 95% of American
    scientists believe in the reality of Global Climate Change and that
    humans are a likely cause.”

    Argument from authority is a fallacy. At one time the authorities thought the earth was flat.

    Last time I checked it wasn’t.

  • netdr

    I believe CO2 is a GHG and mankind emits lots of CO2. Therefore mankind causes some warming.

    A more reasonable bet would be to prove with some degree of certainty that it won’t warm X degrees C by 2030.

    That way it is verifiable by a neutral third party.

  • http://twitter.com/harrydhuffman harrydhuffman

    No, provide verifiable evidence that significantly less than 95% of American scientists are not incompetent, in the face of absolutely clear and definitive evidence (to a competent physical scientist, not even necessarily an “expert”) that there is NO greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, using data that was obtained on the Venus atmosphere more than 20 years ago (and should quickly have squelched belief in the greenhouse effect then). See “Venus: No Greenhouse Effect” at
    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
    note, I did that first proper comparison of Venus and Earth atmospheric temperatures almost 2 years ago now, and still the believers in the consensus have not confronted the fact and accepted it — because they are brainwashed by their faith in a completely false theory. Belief in the “carbon dioxide global warming” meme is hysterical delusion, first and foremost in a generation of miseducated and delusional climate scientists:
    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/10/runaway-global-warming-is-scientific.html

  • theJohnster

    Venus is not the indicator of Earths climate, but CO2 experiments are too simple and basic to be doubted. You don’t “believe” in CO2, as a GHG, you understand it, or you deny rational thought beyond all points of reason.

  • NetDr

    Am I the only one who has taken thermodynamics ?

    CO2 should spread the heat making storms less violent!

    Skeptics should point this out to the alarmists frequently !

  • NetDr

    There is no reasonable reason to believe that the 1 degree a doubling of CO2 will cause will be amplified by 6 or more.

  • Waldo

    Generations of earth scientists have
    utterly failed to note an anciently famous, mathematically precise and
    altogether simple symmetry of the landmasses on the Earth that precludes
    chance continental drift. Such phenomena are clearly the work of Republican trolls. I have proof. Buy my book.

    Or, in other words, what a sad place CS has become. What happened to this place? Clearly I have been away too long.

  • http://www.bookinghotels-bali.com/ Bali Resorts

    Its Nice news for the climate debate is broken

  • theJohnster

    CO2 has only gone from it’s max of 280ppm over the last, well documented, 800,000 years, and most convininly several million years beyond that, to just about 400ppm at present, with a .8 degree temperature increase already incured, and .8 degree temperature increase already demonstrated in the pipeline, and quite convincinly those temperatures would continue to escalate even if we magically held at the 400ppm. Such temperature increase as just 2-degrees have caused mass extinctions, even as they played out over tens of thousands of years allowing a fair amount of adaption, compared to the virtually instantanious change we are causing of simulare temperature increase, or greater, in a just a couple hundred years.

  • theJohnster

    Dude?! That is just so silly. Increase energy, increase dynamics.