the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.
yep, CO2 probably shot up from 280 PPM to 400+ PPM because nature, thereby warming the planet.
just one of those random things that doesn't happen for 800,000+ years, and then does.
from what i've read, the challenge is this:The prize awaits you.
I dont think that anyone has stated that there is no effect from the human population. What has been stated again and again is that we cannot determine what is natural variation and what portion is caused by the habitation of humans on the planet.I ask those who would deny that human activity is the main cause of climate change a very simple question, yet they can't answer it;
'How could the collective activity of SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, all burning everything from camel dung to diesel fuel on a daily basis, NOT affect the climate?'
Crickets.
except for you!I dont think that anyone has stated that there is no effect from the human population.
tell us more about how forest fires cause global cooling now!Global warming is a Hoax...
Not really.I dont think that anyone has stated that there is no effect from the human population. What has been stated again and again is that we cannot determine what is natural variation and what portion is caused by the habitation of humans on the planet.
So yes, it is affecting the climate. Now, whether the effect is good or bad is debatable along with the amount of effect.
Are you happy now?
You know what you get when you make assumptions...Not really.
You must be religious.
Science > Faith
I dont think that anyone has stated that there is no effect from the human population. What has been stated again and again is that we cannot determine what is natural variation and what portion is caused by the habitation of humans on the planet.
So yes, it is affecting the climate. Now, whether the effect is good or bad is debatable along with the amount of effect.
Are you happy now?
In calculus, one can define a difference between two points on the order of an infinitesimal. That doesn't mean it's zero, even though compared to 1, it might as well be.I ask those who would deny that human activity is the main cause of climate change a very simple question, yet they can't answer it;
'How could the collective activity of SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, all burning everything from camel dung to diesel fuel on a daily basis, NOT affect the climate?'
Crickets.
even skeptics like lindzen call CO2 skeptics like you "nutty".In calculus, one can define a difference between two points on the order of an infinitesimal. That doesn't mean it's zero, even though compared to 1, it might as well be.
So the question I ask myself in return is what makes one think CO2 is the main cause of the statistically minor changes in questionably averaged global temperatures in the first place?
The experimental proof is somewhat scant, while the questions continue to mount. But if CO2 isn't the "cause," what is?
Water is a helluva drug.
All opinion. According to the experts, the change in the average temperature of the Earth is significant, not "statistically minor", and well beyond the scope of what nature can accomplish in 135 yearsIn calculus, one can define a difference between two points on the order of an infinitesimal. That doesn't mean it's zero, even though compared to 1, it might as well be.
So the question I ask myself in return is what makes one think CO2 is the main cause of the statistically minor changes in questionably averaged global temperatures in the first place?
The experimental proof is somewhat scant, while the questions continue to mount. But if CO2 isn't the "cause," what is?
Water is a helluva drug.
the link between CO2 and temps is beyond question.
Ok, so ask that question. There isn't any doubt the earth IS warming, soooooo let's follow the bouncing ball!In calculus, one can define a difference between two points on the order of an infinitesimal. That doesn't mean it's zero, even though compared to 1, it might as well be.
So the question I ask myself in return is what makes one think CO2 is the main cause of the statistically minor changes in questionably averaged global temperatures in the first place?
The experimental proof is somewhat scant, while the questions continue to mount. But if CO2 isn't the "cause," what is?
Water is a helluva drug.
The other side of the coin is an ice age. Limited crops, advancing icecaps, population forced to move closer and closer together toward the equator?Lol, you really think there is even a sliver of a chance our effect is good?
You and other scientifically illiterate conservatives are the only ones on planet Earth who believes an ice age is comingThe other side of the coin is an ice age. Limited crops, advancing icecaps, population forced to move closer and closer together toward the equator?
Yes, I think there is a chance that preventing the oncoming ice age might actually be a good thing.
So if his opinion of an ice age is coming is "illiterate" then why bash someone over an opinion. You have your off the wall opinions and thoughts why bash some one else for theres. Does the computer you sit in front of make you feel powerful, strong, etc. Your way is not always right and usually wrong as well as many others. I would just like to know why do you bash others for sharing their opinions when you do the sameYou and other scientifically illiterate conservatives are the only ones on planet Earth who believes an ice age is coming
The earth hasnt gotten any warmer in the last 18 years yet you are still crying about global warming. Coming from you that is a compliment.You and other scientifically illiterate conservatives are the only ones on planet Earth who believes an ice age is coming