A Challenge to Climate Change Skeptics

Bama_Dawg · July 18th, 2009, 04:51 PM

Pretty interesting post/challenge on fivethirtyeight.com:

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: A Challenge to Climate Change Skeptics

	Quote:
	Selective memory is a powerful thing. I'm not particularly sure when the fact that it's cool or rainy in your hometown one afternoon became subject for worthwhile blog material, but you have started to see this all the time on certain conservative blogs, probably led by the example of Matt Drudge. Therefore, because I'd like to see more accountability on all sides of this debate and because I'm tired of people who don't understand statistics and because I'd like to make some money, I issue the following challenge. You are eligible for this challenge if: 1. You live in the United States and provide me with your home address and telephone number (I will provide you with mine) and, 2. You are a regular (at least once weekly) contributor to a political, economics or science blog with an Alexa traffic global ranking of 50,000 or lower. The reason for the latter requirement is because I want to be able to shame/humiliate you if you back out of the challenge or refuse to pay, as I'd assume you'd do the same with me. The rules of the challenge are as follows: 1. For each day that the high temperature in your hometown is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit above average, as listed by Weather Underground, you owe me $25. For each day that it is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit below average, I owe you $25. 2. The challenge proceeds in monthly intervals, with the first month being August. At the end of each month, we'll tally up the winning and losing days and the winner writes the loser a check for the balance. 3. The challenge automatically rolls over to the next month until/unless: (i) one party informs the other by the 20th of the previous month that he would like to discontinue the challenge (that is, if you want to discontinue the challenge for September, you'd have to tell me this by August 20th), or (ii) the losing party has failed to pay the winning party in a timely fashion, in which case the challenge may be canceled at the sole discretion of the winning party. Any takers? You can reach me by clicking the 'Contact' button at the top of the page.

Anyone on this board want to lose some money?

Bama4Ever831 · July 18th, 2009, 05:32 PM

	Quote:	Bama_Dawg
	Pretty interesting post/challenge on fivethirtyeight.com: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: A Challenge to Climate Change Skeptics Anyone on this board want to lose some money?

Not me.

Environment Blog Archive Countering the contrarians on global warming | Blogs |

	Quote:
	Aaron Huertas has been in this game for a while, so he figured there might be problems as soon as he saw the headline on the release from Rice University: “Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong.” The text of the release, which was promoting a paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience, noted that climate models can’t explain all of the heating indicated in the geologic record of a warm period some 55 million years ago. And one of the scientists who did the research told Reuters that this could mean current forecasts are underestimating how hot Earth’s atmosphere will get in the future. But Huertas, press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, figured the initial headline from Rice University might be used by those skeptical about climate change — he calls them contrarians because he feels all scientists are skeptical — to argue that the carbon dioxide generated by human activities isn’t to blame for global warming. Sure enough, USAToday’s headline read “Could we be wrong about global warming?” There was no reference to the notion that this research could indicate a greater global warming trend ahead. The blog Right Side News went further, with a post entitled “UN models on global warming fundamentally wrong.” The subhead read: “Study shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models ‘fundamentally wrong’ - Blames ‘Unknown Processes’ — not CO2 for ancient global warming.”

TiderB · July 18th, 2009, 05:36 PM

The problem with this challenge is that the actual issue is not always just about whether the climate is changing or not. A lot of people believe the earth is warming but that it's not man made. So yeah, this guy may when the challenge, but it doesn't mean he's right about global warming.

Bama4Ever831 · July 18th, 2009, 05:42 PM

	Quote:	TiderB
	The problem with this challenge is that the actual issue is not always just about whether the climate is changing or not. A lot of people believe the earth is warming but that it's not man made. So yeah, this guy may when the challenge, but it doesn't mean he's right about global warming.

You are correct. The challenge won't prove anything other than that short-term temperature fluctuations don't prove man-made CC or disprove it.

Bamabuzzard · July 18th, 2009, 05:48 PM

	Quote:	Bama4Ever831
	You are correct. The challenge won't prove anything other than that short-term temperature fluctuations don't prove man-made CC or disprove it.

I agree. "Global warming" definitely happens. It has happened ever since the earth came to be. Temps go up and temps go down. The tricky part is determining with some type of accuracy and credibility that we are causing it.

Relayer · July 18th, 2009, 06:10 PM

Wonder how the low temperature for a particular day figures into it.

The next 5 nights here in ATL will see an average low of 61 degrees. That's about 10 degrees below normal.

Gonna be nice! Now that's global warm... uh, 'scuse me, global climate change... I can appreciate!

RhodeIslandRed · July 18th, 2009, 07:41 PM

The last global warming period was the Eemian interglacial period about 130,000 years ago which lasted about 12,000 years. It separates the Illinoan and the Wisconsin ice ages. It may have been just as warm or even warmer than our current interglacial period. The point is that there are more forces than just we humans at work. Some feel that certain cosmologic forces are far more influential.
Posted via Mobile Device

NYBamaFan · July 19th, 2009, 07:55 AM

	Quote:	Bama_Dawg
	...Anyone on this board want to lose some money?

If he were tracking my town of residence, he would be out some serious smack this year. So far, we are below average temperature all but 3 days since April 1st (per our local weather man). But look at Dallas and you will see the opposite.

Local weather does not equal climate. This is a complete waste. And anyone who "knows" what is happening with our global climate right now is a tool...

Bodhisattva · July 19th, 2009, 09:02 AM

1. The planet has heating and cooling cycles.

2. Mankind may have some small influence on temperature.

3. The population of the US is dwarfed by that of China and India, which will have hundreds of millions entering the middle class. This means they will buy cars and homes and other things that use lots of energy.

4. Every man, woman and child in this country could use no energy for the rest of their lives and it would not change points 1 and/or 2 and/or 3.

Relayer · July 19th, 2009, 09:12 AM

	Quote:	Bodhisattva
	1. The planet has heating and cooling cycles. 2. Mankind may have some small influence on temperature. 3. The population of the US is dwarfed by that of China and India, which will have hundreds of millions entering the middle class. This means they will buy cars and homes and other things that use lots of energy. 4. Every man, woman and child in this country could use no energy for the rest of their lives and it would not change points 1 and/or 2 and/or 3.

Yes, but we can wreck our economy and way of life as a futile, but heroic gesture.

And other countries will like us better.

RhodeIslandRed · July 19th, 2009, 09:27 AM

In terms of potential solutions, does anyone remember cold fusion? It was discovered in the 1980's but was dismissed as hogwash by critics as well as the media. It is interesting then that over 100 laboratories world-wide have duplicated and verified the results. Even the US Navy has expressed promise in the technology as late as 2002. However there is no positive coverage from the press, which I find more interesting than the technology itself.
Posted via Mobile Device

Bama4Ever831 · July 19th, 2009, 09:47 AM

	Quote:	Bodhisattva
	1. The planet has heating and cooling cycles. 2. Mankind may have some small influence on temperature. 3. The population of the US is dwarfed by that of China and India, which will have hundreds of millions entering the middle class. This means they will buy cars and homes and other things that use lots of energy. 4. Every man, woman and child in this country could use no energy for the rest of their lives and it would not change points 1 and/or 2 and/or 3.

1. True
2. I think it is much more. Look at things like the hole in the Ozone layer that we caused and then allowed to heal. (Different from the more normal hole over Antarctica.) Also look at acid rain that was caused by SO2 emissions. After emissions cut back, acid rain is much less a threat.
3. Very true. We need China and India to be willing to cutback as well. While China now creates more GHGs than the USA, we still produce more per capita.

bamacon · July 20th, 2009, 03:35 PM

	Quote:	Bama4Ever831
	3. Very true. We need China and India to be willing to cutback as well. While China now creates more GHGs than the USA, we still produce more per capita.

And every time they are asked to come on board and destroy their up and coming economies they tell us to urinate up a flagpole. In terms of technology we pollute so much less in terms of the production we have it isn't even funny. When politicians allow nuclear energy to be used like it should have been over the last 3 decades then I will know that they are serious about changes in energy policy. Until then it's business as usual.