If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   If you don't believe in climate change, and can prove that it's not real, you could be $10,000 richer. Difficulty: Must use the Scientific Method to prove your claim   (io9.com) divider line 156
    More: Unlikely, climate change deniers, scientific method, Christopher Keating, U.S. Naval Academy, global warming, greenhouse gases, lung disease  
•       •       •

1322 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:44 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-24 07:59:19 PM  
No one who understands the Scientific Method denies climate change.
 
2014-06-24 08:03:46 PM  
Difficulty: Must use the Scientific Method to prove your claim

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-24 08:10:55 PM  
Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.
 
2014-06-24 08:15:26 PM  

iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.


We are already past the point of no return on experiencing the effects down the road, however there is still time to reverse it. The good news is, whether or not we act to eliminate CO2 emissions in the current age, the situation is ultimately self-correcting for the next.
 
2014-06-24 08:15:56 PM  

iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.


Yeah, why bother. Let's have air like Shanghai and water like Bangalore!

/no thank you
 
2014-06-24 08:23:53 PM  

make me some tea: iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.

We are already past the point of no return on experiencing the effects down the road, however there is still time to reverse it. The good news is, whether or not we act to eliminate CO2 emissions in the current age, the situation is ultimately self-correcting for the next.


Based on how things have progressed in the last 10 years; it will probably take direct physical intervention by a higher power/noodle for us to actually do anything about it.

/ Doom I say! We're all doomed!

// DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM !
 
2014-06-24 08:31:42 PM  

iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.


Yup, those are the most popular derailing comments. I'm still not sure exactly what the "too late" people are trying to say. Too late to prevent any environmental negative effects from human society? Cause I think we are a few thousand years too late for that one. Or do they think that no matter what we do the planet is going to be going full Venus? Because there's a lot of room between those two options. And the second comment seems to require an active and willful refusal to understand how the world works. China does put out a lot of CO2, but they are still putting out less than the United States and Europe combined. And it's economic activity from outside of China that is driving a lot of that. Everything is connected in some way. If we start taking it seriously, they'll have to start taking it seriously.
 
2014-06-24 08:36:47 PM  
It's just a ploy to make the staff of the Creation Museum scream "Quick, to the Biblemobile!" and when they're gone move in and go all Sovereign Citizen on the place
 
2014-06-24 08:47:03 PM  

TheOmni: iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.

Yup, those are the most popular derailing comments. I'm still not sure exactly what the "too late" people are trying to say. Too late to prevent any environmental negative effects from human society? Cause I think we are a few thousand years too late for that one. Or do they think that no matter what we do the planet is going to be going full Venus? Because there's a lot of room between those two options. And the second comment seems to require an active and willful refusal to understand how the world works. China does put out a lot of CO2, but they are still putting out less than the United States and Europe combined. And it's economic activity from outside of China that is driving a lot of that. Everything is connected in some way. If we start taking it seriously, they'll have to start taking it seriously.


What I'm saying is: DOOOOOOOOOM!

Dooomy doomy doom!

Let's all sing the doom song!

/ Also, based on the last decade, we aren't going to do shiat to correct it.
 
2014-06-24 08:49:33 PM  

Nadie_AZ: iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.

Yeah, why bother. Let's have air like Shanghai and water like Bangalore!

/no thank you


No kidding. Maine sucks.
 
2014-06-24 08:49:57 PM  
People who deny climate change have a vested financial interest, are following whatever their republican overlords have to say and...well that's pretty much it besides believing that the majority of the scientific community is just bullshiatting. And they're not entirely sure about gravity. Because like, that's just a theory too.
 
2014-06-24 08:53:26 PM  
...and here I am watching the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate.

Doooomed!!
 
2014-06-24 08:58:21 PM  
Nobody would bother to take this on. As was said earlier, anybody who uses the scientific method doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change. Instead, it would be like the Randi challenge: someone would claim that they can do it, then try to undermine the testing criteria, and then assert that the test was a) fixed in order to suppress their findings, or b) they simply wouldn't submit to such a fixed test. After this somehow makes them more credible to the loonies, they'd go on the UFO-CT-Nutter circuit and preach to the other nutters who use their presentation to confirm their own views.

Throwing out a challenge like this makes for good theater, but in the end it never changes any minds. All it serves to do is identify a few more dummies to those of us who know better.
 
2014-06-24 09:19:25 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Nobody would bother to take this on. As was said earlier, anybody who uses the scientific method doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change. Instead, it would be like the Randi challenge: someone would claim that they can do it, then try to undermine the testing criteria, and then assert that the test was a) fixed in order to suppress their findings, or b) they simply wouldn't submit to such a fixed test. After this somehow makes them more credible to the loonies, they'd go on the UFO-CT-Nutter circuit and preach to the other nutters who use their presentation to confirm their own views.

Throwing out a challenge like this makes for good theater, but in the end it never changes any minds. All it serves to do is identify a few more dummies to those of us who know better.


Actual accreditation or degree in an appropriate  field does not seem to be a concern to groups that want a certain outcome. A BS degree or a PhD from an online mill is fine and if photogenic and willing to spout nonsense science in public and TV the yearly income would be over $150k. Giving up personal beliefs  for money is not surprising, but keeping that  7% of scientists that may have no other position for income and not a rising percent with poorly paid associate professors in the US is surprising.
 
2014-06-24 09:24:29 PM  
IF someone could prove it, wouldn't $10.000 be a little on the low side for such a remarkable proof?

Think of what tobacco companies would pay for scientific proof that smoking didn't cause cancer X 1000.
 
2014-06-24 09:29:56 PM  
Proof? We don't need no stinkin proof.
 
2014-06-24 09:30:34 PM  
So there's gonna be math...
 
2014-06-24 09:42:28 PM  
All the other planets are having global warming too. Evidence that the sun is a factor. Not that pollution, deforestation, and methane from flatulent cows aren't also factors.
 
2014-06-24 09:48:52 PM  

TheOther: IF someone could prove it, wouldn't $10.000 be a little on the low side for such a remarkable proof?

Think of what tobacco companies would pay for scientific proof that smoking didn't cause cancer X 1000.


That's the point. Thinking people ought to be able to extrapolate that discovering a provable theory against climate change would be worth one's weight in gold.

Unfortunately, most people aren't thinking. Not about global warming, anyway.
 
2014-06-24 10:00:10 PM  
Difficulty: How the f*ck are you supposed to prove a negative? Don't get all holier-than-thou standing on the shoulders of the scientific method and then ask a fundamental logical impossibility.
 
2014-06-24 11:00:07 PM  
This isn't exactly asking for proof of a negative, it's asking for proof of a decreasing global temperature.  That should be possible to prove, if climate change were a hoax.
 
2014-06-24 11:04:36 PM  

SphericalTime: This isn't exactly asking for proof of a negative, it's asking for proof of a decreasing global temperature.  That should be possible to prove, if climate change were a hoax.


Wouldn't 'a decreasing global temperature' be 'climate change'?
 
2014-06-24 11:18:20 PM  
Oh look, an alarmist pulling a stunt. And a cheap stunt at that.
 
2014-06-24 11:37:30 PM  

TheOther: SphericalTime: This isn't exactly asking for proof of a negative, it's asking for proof of a decreasing global temperature.  That should be possible to prove, if climate change were a hoax.

Wouldn't 'a decreasing global temperature' be 'climate change'?


Oooooo...

That's good. Keep on with that. *golf clap*
 
2014-06-24 11:52:21 PM  

SphericalTime: This isn't exactly asking for proof of a negative, it's asking for proof of a decreasing global temperature.  That should be possible to prove, if climate change were a hoax.


I think it's more proof that climate, and by extension the global temperature, isn't changing at all.
 
2014-06-24 11:52:29 PM  

b2theory: No one who understands the Scientific Method denies climate change.


I'm friends with a physician who routinely scores in the top 1st percentile in a very competitive specialty on board exams. He vehemently argues with me that any significant climate change is happening, much less is man made or influenced. It's hard to wrap my head around.

/Fox News is a hell of a drug
 
2014-06-24 11:52:39 PM  

make me some tea: iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.

We are already past the point of no return on experiencing the effects down the road, however there is still time to reverse it. The good news is, whether or not we act to eliminate CO2 emissions in the current age, the situation is ultimately self-correcting for the next.


Everyone says we need more jobs. Climate change is going to cost billions.

There you go. Jobs. Build a flood wall.
 
2014-06-24 11:54:41 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: I'm friends with a physician who routinely scores in the top 1st percentile in a very competitive specialty on board exams. He vehemently argues with me that any significant climate change is happening, much less is man made or influenced. It's hard to wrap my head around.

/Fox News is a hell of a drug


One could argue that medical doctors are less scientists and more engineers.  They take facts and apply them, but they don't run the experiments that determine the facts.
 
2014-06-24 11:56:24 PM  
I'm not entirely sure the scientific method was used to prove climate change. Of course, in science nothing is quite proven. Based on a preponderance of the evidence in a model that started in the 1930s there seems to be an argument that excess carbon dioxide adds up to a warmer climate, and that change is uniformly bad.
 
2014-06-24 11:57:54 PM  
If climate change is real, then why are there still penguins?
 
2014-06-24 11:57:56 PM  
This is a trick. The planet is warming; we're just not the cause of it. How am I supposed to prove that?
 
2014-06-24 11:59:56 PM  
Straw man.  No one is saying what he is suggesting.  Moreover, it is impossible to prove what he is asking anyway, making this nothing more than a publicity stunt.   The position of skeptics is that the true impact of CO2 emissions on the climate is still very unclear and of the data that does exist, particularly for the past 16-18 years, doesn't seem to suggest that some global calamity is imminent. Secondly, the skeptics have never been caught or even accused of willfully trying to mislead...AGWers have (see climategate and hockey stick graph among other instances).  Finally, I would say being skeptical is more befitting a true scientist, particularly when the data is very far from conclusive.
 
2014-06-25 12:07:12 AM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: b2theory: No one who understands the Scientific Method denies climate change.

I'm friends with a physician who routinely scores in the top 1st percentile in a very competitive specialty on board exams. He vehemently argues with me that any significant climate change is happening, much less is man made or influenced. It's hard to wrap my head around.

/Fox News is a hell of a drug


Physicians are usually terrible at science. When I had to take my prerequisite classical physics class with all of the premed students I was shocked that without exception they were horrible critical thinkers and problem solvers (warning... Sample size of two classes, and I do have some truly brilliant physician friends who weren't in that class). I would love to have seen that crowd take Modern Physics or E/M
 
2014-06-25 12:07:41 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: particularly for the past 16-18 years

1.bp.blogspot.com

 
2014-06-25 12:07:54 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Nobody would bother to take this on. As was said earlier, anybody who uses the scientific method doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change. Instead, it would be like the Randi challenge: someone would claim that they can do it, then try to undermine the testing criteria, and then assert that the test was a) fixed in order to suppress their findings, or b) they simply wouldn't submit to such a fixed test. After this somehow makes them more credible to the loonies, they'd go on the UFO-CT-Nutter circuit and preach to the other nutters who use their presentation to confirm their own views.

Throwing out a challenge like this makes for good theater, but in the end it never changes any minds. All it serves to do is identify a few more dummies to those of us who know better.


you can't prove a negative.
 
2014-06-25 12:09:04 AM  
Let's assume for the sake of argument the global warming climate change faithful are right. We'd be far better off addressing it with active steps like spraying sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere or one of several other schemes for cooling off the the planet than rather than trying to make every nation on Earth stop using fossil fuels. At least, one of active plans would have a chance of being implemented. The way we're going, if the believers prevail, they'll only succeed in forcing thru some ineffective but economically damaging half-measures, while Africa, China, and India raise their middle fingers and burn whatever they can get their hands on. Obama is trying to force coal out of use in the US, and cola mining companies are ramping up exports. Interestingly, one of the importers is the UK. We're literally sending coals to Newcastle.
 
2014-06-25 12:12:11 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: Straw man.  No one is saying what he is suggesting.  Moreover, it is impossible to prove what he is asking anyway, making this nothing more than a publicity stunt.   The position of skeptics is that the true impact of CO2 emissions on the climate is still very unclear and of the data that does exist, particularly for the past 16-18 years, doesn't seem to suggest that some global calamity is imminent. Secondly, the skeptics have never been caught or even accused of willfully trying to mislead...AGWers have (see climategate and hockey stick graph among other instances).  Finally, I would say being skeptical is more befitting a true scientist, particularly when the data is very far from conclusive.


First, skeptic does not mean what you think it means.

Second, you just provided evidence of a "skeptic(non proper usage)" willfully misleading people as the true impact of CO2 is largely understood. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are misleading people and not just grossly ignorant.
 
2014-06-25 12:16:37 AM  
$10,000, also known as the amount money an oil company makes in half of a second.
The good guys can't win this one.
 
2014-06-25 12:17:51 AM  

cryinoutloud: This is a trick. The planet is warming; we're just not the cause of it. How am I supposed to prove that?


If the warming is caused by greater concentrations of CO2, prove that humans haven't been the ones tossing CO2 into the air by the ton, and added to that by cutting down forests and vegetation that traditionally consumes CO2.

Good luck with that.
 
2014-06-25 12:19:32 AM  

Ambivalence: Occam's Disposable Razor: I'm friends with a physician who routinely scores in the top 1st percentile in a very competitive specialty on board exams. He vehemently argues with me that any significant climate change is happening, much less is man made or influenced. It's hard to wrap my head around.

/Fox News is a hell of a drug

One could argue that medical doctors are less scientists and more engineers.  They take facts and apply them, but they don't run the experiments that determine the facts.


As an engineer that's insulting. A good engineer working on any reasonably complex system must be a great scientist. Terrible engineers will refer to complicated things as black-art. Great engineers can synthesize falsifiable hypothesis, design experiments, control their variables, collect data and interpret it. Seriously, this is a daily activity.
 
2014-06-25 12:24:30 AM  
This sounds like a job for ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHEEEEEE
 
2014-06-25 12:30:28 AM  

stonelotus: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Nobody would bother to take this on. As was said earlier, anybody who uses the scientific method doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change. Instead, it would be like the Randi challenge: someone would claim that they can do it, then try to undermine the testing criteria, and then assert that the test was a) fixed in order to suppress their findings, or b) they simply wouldn't submit to such a fixed test. After this somehow makes them more credible to the loonies, they'd go on the UFO-CT-Nutter circuit and preach to the other nutters who use their presentation to confirm their own views.

Throwing out a challenge like this makes for good theater, but in the end it never changes any minds. All it serves to do is identify a few more dummies to those of us who know better.

you can't prove a negative.


No, but you can disprove a positive. Debunk the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists who have devoted considerable effort and study to making the determination, if you can. You need only prove that carbon dioxide liberated by humans is not having any effect, and the way to prove that is to falsify everybody else.

It's a tough burden being one of the few with the answer, so have at it. I think you know how it will turn out, though.
 
2014-06-25 12:49:08 AM  

Ambivalence: If the warming is caused by greater concentrations of CO2, prove that humans haven't been the ones tossing CO2 into the air by the ton, and added to that by cutting down forests and vegetation that traditionally consumes CO2.
Good luck with that.


Burning fossil fuels is a small contribution to global warming. You know what's really warming up the planet? Heavy breathing. There are now more humans having sex, and looking at porn, than at any time in human history. We must stop having sex and looking at porn. Go for a long drive instead.
 
2014-06-25 12:50:38 AM  
How can climate change be real if our eyes aren't real?

/Ten thousand dollars, please!
 
2014-06-25 12:55:46 AM  

stonelotus: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Nobody would bother to take this on. As was said earlier, anybody who uses the scientific method doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change. Instead, it would be like the Randi challenge: someone would claim that they can do it, then try to undermine the testing criteria, and then assert that the test was a) fixed in order to suppress their findings, or b) they simply wouldn't submit to such a fixed test. After this somehow makes them more credible to the loonies, they'd go on the UFO-CT-Nutter circuit and preach to the other nutters who use their presentation to confirm their own views.

Throwing out a challenge like this makes for good theater, but in the end it never changes any minds. All it serves to do is identify a few more dummies to those of us who know better.

you can't prove a negative.


A person gets hit by a train and dies. Are you saying I can't prove it wasn't drowning?
 
2014-06-25 01:06:07 AM  

iheartscotch: TheOmni: iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.

Yup, those are the most popular derailing comments. I'm still not sure exactly what the "too late" people are trying to say. Too late to prevent any environmental negative effects from human society? Cause I think we are a few thousand years too late for that one. Or do they think that no matter what we do the planet is going to be going full Venus? Because there's a lot of room between those two options. And the second comment seems to require an active and willful refusal to understand how the world works. China does put out a lot of CO2, but they are still putting out less than the United States and Europe combined. And it's economic activity from outside of China that is driving a lot of that. Everything is connected in some way. If we start taking it seriously, they'll have to start taking it seriously.

What I'm saying is: DOOOOOOOOOM!

Dooomy doomy doom!

Let's all sing the doom song!

/ Also, based on the last decade, we aren't going to do shiat to correct it.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-25 01:16:08 AM  

Ivo Shandor: If climate change is real, then why are there still penguins?


Because the polar bears think the birds taste horrible.
 
2014-06-25 01:24:47 AM  

iheartscotch: Aren't we about a decade too late to do anything about it? Plus, even if we completely stopped polluting right now, China, India and Russia would still be releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and water.


I think that was the deniers plan all along. Muddy the waters with doubt long enough to be able to say "Well, it's too late to do anything now!"
 
2014-06-25 01:31:15 AM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: b2theory: No one who understands the Scientific Method denies climate change.

I'm friends with a physician who routinely scores in the top 1st percentile in a very competitive specialty on board exams. He vehemently argues with me that any significant climate change is happening, much less is man made or influenced. It's hard to wrap my head around.

/Fox News is a hell of a drug


"If three people told you a new drug would help your patient, and ninety-seven people told you that drug would KILL your patient, and all of them were highly educated specialists in medicine, who would you side with?"

That's how you un-Fox-News someone.  Aside from being right in the first place, the way to explain it to them is in a way they'd understand.
 
2014-06-25 01:32:18 AM  
As long as we're not doomed.

/wait...were what?
//oh crap.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report