Just for argument’s sake

February 16th, 2010

What would it take to disprove global warming?

Entry Filed under: Observations

13 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  February 16th, 2010 at 4:45 pm


    You’ll be hard pressed to disprove global warming short of watching that trend line go down over the next fifty years.

    Whether or not it’s man caused is up for debate. But the fact that the earth has warmed over the past century is not.

    One summer, one storm or even one year does not a trend make when it comes to global climate.

  • 2. buzz  |  February 16th, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    Is that the graph that excludes all of the inland temps from China or the ones where the thermometers were moved to warmer areas? Just want to get all the info, thanks.

  • 3. John Foust  |  February 16th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Really? That’s the way it works? Can you disprove my theory that temperatures are caused by leprechauns? * Or would you ask me for supporting evidence?

    If the data showed dropping temps, we’d be calling it “global cooling”. Presto, global warming “disproved”. Follow the data. You want science-based answers? Stop listening to political agendas.

    * And that the leprechauns are under the control of the director of the St. Pat’s Day parade?

  • 4. BobG  |  February 16th, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    I have to go with John; it’s up to the chicken littles to prove to me that man-made warming exists, not for me to prove it doesn’t. So far I haven’t seen it.

  • 5. Debunked  |  February 16th, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    As I said, you can debate all you want over if it’s man caused or not. Though I personally think it’s naive to think all the C02 humans spew out hasn’t contributed at all I won’t waste time arguing if you think that it’s not 100% man caused. But the facts show the earth has warmed.

  • 6. John Foust  |  February 17th, 2010 at 9:52 am

    BobG, then the question becomes “Why is the evidence good enough for someone trained in the art and the science, but not good enough for you?”

  • 7. BobG  |  February 17th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    There are plenty of people trained who don’t believe; why is it not good enough for them? Also, just because I am not a meteorologist doesn’t mean I can’t read statistics and examine the data. I may be rusty, but I do have some training in math and physics. What I am seeing is a bunch of people who believe in a theory and are trying to convince everyone else they’re right, rather than seeing if the theory is correct. Show me some hard data proving climate change to be man made, and I’ll use it in forming an opinion.

  • 8. Billiam  |  February 17th, 2010 at 11:50 am

    True Debunked. It’s also been proven that the earth warms and cools in cycles, driven by the Sun. So where does that leave us?

  • 9. Debunked  |  February 17th, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    So we’re all agreed that global warming has existed over the past century. Good.

    Now we have four possible outcomes.
    Global warming is man made and we do nothing.
    Global warming is man made and we do something.
    Global warming is not man made and we do nothing,
    Global warming is not man made and we do something.

    Now let’s assume for a minute that it’s not man made, but we can’t really know this for another half century at best (and that’s if the earth begins cooling today) as it takes time to generate statistically accurate trend lines.

    What do we achieve out of putting money into global warming? More dependence on clean energy sources generated by wind, water, solar power, hydrothermal vents, and so on? Fully renewable resources. Less dependence on non-renewable energy sources such as coal or oil. More energy efficient modes of transportation. A better public transportation system. Cleaner air in cities.

    So if global warming is not man made and we do something, it looks like we still come out ahead.

    The flip side is if global warming is man made and we do nothing then the earth will almost certainly be worse off in a century. Sure, it’s past our life times so who cares, right? That’s the real mentality that causes people to be against global warming. That the effects are too far off for us, today, to care. But if it is man made, we need to care today to prevent problems from occurring in a century.

    Two points on this chart end up with a better world. That is, if we do something – regardless of if it is man made or not.

    One point ends up with no difference. That is, if global warming isn’t man made and we do nothing.

    And on point ends up in disaster. If global warming is man made and we do nothing.

    It comes down to a game of Russian Roulette with the earth. Who wants to really pull that trigger?

  • 10. Billiam  |  February 17th, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Actually, I do think man plays a small part in it. However, since there’s been so much fraud in the so called “settled science”, maybe we should look at it in a serious manner. I, as well as many others, are cynical about the motivations and the supposed need for such draconian solutions. I, as well as many others, think the answer lies not in wrecking our economy, but in a comprehensive energy policy. That means drilling for our own oil, while we look for better sources, such as renewables and others like Natural Gas, as well as Nuclear.

    For instance, there are much better, more efficient, and less damaging ethanol mixtures than corn. For decades, all we hear is how dangerous it is for us to be dependent on foreign oil, yet, these same people bend over backwords to prevent our getting our own. Stupidity! Now, you might make the argument that we have to get away from oil. Fine. Until you come up with a source that can cover everything that comes from oil, will you send us back to the stone age, or drive the cost so high that you ruin people? BTW, let’s not forget all the non-fuel products that come from petroleum. What will you replace those with?

    You see the problem? It’s easy to say we need to get new energy sources, even though it may be true. As you know, it’s a lot harder to come up with something to take the place of oil, which is why I say look at a large number of things. That said, keep gov’t money out, as much as you can. I believe that’s why there’s so much fraud in the GW studies. There’s a big piggy bank for them in DC. If they’re wrong, that bank dries up. So, no subsidies. Not for big oil, not for ethanol, no one. Besides the fact that it leads to corruption, we, as a nation, are broke. I just wish the idiots in DC would get that.

  • 11. Lance  |  February 18th, 2010 at 11:50 am

    What would it take to disprove global warming?

    Nuclear winter.

  • 12. Fred  |  February 18th, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    What would it take to disprove global warming?

    Clarity of thought.

  • 13. John Foust  |  February 19th, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Me, I’m a denier when it comes to painkillers. There’s no way they have any effect on clarity of thought!

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.