Physicist Offers $10,000 to Anyone Who Can Disprove Global Warming

then what is your claim? you are saying the current cycle of warming is man made correct? so what is man doing that is causing it if it isn't their 5% of the atmospheric CO2 contribution

 

science trumps right-wing propaganda

 

then show me the science that ties the current warming cycle to man

 

again? ok


There Is a Scientific Consensus

The most important thing to understand about the scientific consensus that human activities are causing the earth to warm is that it isn’t a result of peer pressure or someone policing scientists’ opinions. It results from the scientific method.


John Abraham - Professor of thermal and fluid sciences, University of St. Thomas School of Engineering
“Scientists are very interested in theories that other factors may be causing climate change,” says John Abraham. “The contrarians put forward ideas and the consensus scientists investigate them honestly and find that they don’t withstand scientific scrutiny. This happens all the time. That’s how science works. In fact, showing that these guys are wrong makes the science better.”

A scientific consensus emerges when the weight of evidence for a proposition becomes so great that serious researchers stop arguing about it among themselves. They then move on to study and debate other questions. There’s quite a bit of scientific debate about lots of different aspects of climate change, but the question of whether humans are causing the planet to warm isn’t one of them.

There have been three studies, using different methodologies, that have shown that almost all working climate scientists — 97 percent — accept the consensus view.

But what if those three percent who reportedly reject the consensus are like Galileo, who challenged the 16th century view that the sun revolved around the Earth? John Abraham and five of his colleagues published a study earlier this year which found that studies authored by climate contrarians “were often found to be unsubstantiated by the data,” resulting in “criticisms, corrections, and in some cases, resignation of editors.” They add: “the same fate has not befallen the prominent consensus studies.”

But that hasn’t prevented climate deniers from compiling long lists of people they claim to be dissenting climatologists. The most prominent of these was the Oregon Petition, which was organized by a chemist named Art Robinson, founder of a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools.”

The petition was supposedly signed by “31,000 American scientists” who opposed the consensus “entirely on scientific grounds published in peer reviewed journals.” But in fact, anyone could sign on, and according to Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, the list ultimately included the Spice Girls and several Star Wars characters.

More recently, climate change denier Marc Morano, who in the past has worked for both Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James “Climate Change Is A Hoax” Inhofe (R-OK), compiled a smaller list that he says is proof that the consensus is “falling apart.”

Barry Bickmore, “a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, an active Mormon, and an active Republican,” looked at a sample of the names on Morano’s list and found mechanical engineers, a biochemist and a metallurgist working for US Magnesium, but no working climate scientists who had published in peer-reviewed journals.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

 

You are in a thread that someone was arguing one can't prove a negative. Ok so not necessarily your own theory, but one you agree exsists. My apologies for that error in my wording. However.....

I was adressing your comment; "any scientist knows that a theory can be disproved" Sorry, but that would mean you felt there was a theory for someone to disprove, ok not yours, but a scientist's you agree with. Why argue the point? Why make that statement if you didn't feel there was a theory to disprove?

See, we say there is no such theory. There is a hypothesis, but no theory since there is no proof of the hypothesis.

If indeed you do not believe in the scientist supposed theory, then what is it you are arguing?


o

 

that 97% consensus bull crap has been debunked

 

by who, big oil's paid lackeys? get a grip on reality

[video=youtube;IaKm89eVhoE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaKm89eVhoE[/video]

 

This thread has reached post limits. Feel free to start another.

Thanks
Shangrila
PF Moderator