What the warmers have not demonstrated is the significance and timing of the impacts of these actions, yet are pressing for policies that are designed to mitigate the uncertain impacts, and there is the rub for me. I am very concerned about both the short and long term economic and geopolitical effects world wide, particularly the potential unintended outcomes of policies solely designed to mitigate AGW.
So I don't think it is a matter of 'burden of proof' in terms of the science itself. I believe we need to discuss the economic and geopolitical outcomes of burdening developed countries with the double whammy of paying for the costs of mitigation while accepting the penalties for our 'carbon footprint' at the same time while other developing countries get more or less a free ride. Especially when we take into account the increasing competition for energy and the costs of military intervention to keep the supply lines open, with the military costs borne by the most developed nations-particularly the U.S. Add to that the costs of climate research and development of alternative energy sources and the expenses are massive, not even mentioning the foreign aid that is already being provided.
All that being said-and I am straying from the point of your question, sorry-I really feel like we have to keep investing in research and improved analysis of what is going on with climate as well as the development of alternative energy sources, because there are multiple benefits from each. Knowledge is clearly a good thing. Those who say more CO2 in the atmosphere is harmless have not presented a case that is sufficient to offset the position that the warmers have presented.
To specifically answer your question, it is primarily non-scientists who have said the burden of proof is on the warmers; they want to delay for as long as possible the investment in mitigation strategies because of the risks of doing so vs. the uncertainties of climate change. This strategy is not working to their advantage if the momentum of alternative energy development, climate research investment and governing opinion is taken into account, but it is serving to delay some economic and geopolitical decision making. It would be better for all concerned if we would discuss that more than the piddling around with current weather, blahblahblah. When you look at what we know now vs. ten years ago and consider how much more we can learn in the next ten years...well, the coming decade will pass very quickly, and it would be very beneficial for us to engage in more dialogue about specific actions and costs. Nobody really seems to want to do that, though.
If someone predicts there will be an earthquake that will destroy Florida next month, the burden of proof is not going to be on people to prove he's wrong.
No, the burden of proof is on those who come up with a theory. The null hypothesis is that the warming is due to natural variation. Current amounts of warming are within the range of natural variation. The 'billions of people are at risk ' theory requires not just proof of CO2 causing warming, but CO2 causing lots of warming. Currently, the warming has been small to date, less than one degree Celsius. The lack of warming of the last 15 years or so, suggests that the worst case numbers that were previously predicted are unlikely.
We have already seen people predicting that the Arctic ice will be gone by now. Yet when it doesn't happen, where are the newspaper articles issuing corrections?
Ha, this has to be a joke question right?
It's the standard scientific method for proponents of wild theories to actually provide proof, not the other way around - durr.
Edit you're talking nonsense and you know it. Have you always been good at talking drivel or is it something you picked up after joining your cult.
Edit First of all, the only wild theory that I have heard on this forum is that we could supposedly add billions of tons of carbon dioxide, a gas which absorbs infrared, to the atmosphere, and expect not to get any negative consequences.------
I guess that must be why there's been no warming for the last 20 years then, my sad little cultist friend
I did, for one. How can it be any other way?
The raw data seems to indicate that nothing exceptional is happening. If someone wants to make the claim that something exceptional is happening then they need to support their case with data. As WE Deming said: "In God we trust, all others bring data."
Consider the alternative: I claim that the furthest flung moon in the universe is made of green cheese. Now, it is up to you to prove me wrong. Part B is how I can turn the fact that the green cheese moon exists into a money making exercise.
The climatologists should be trying to prove themselves wrong but this is not how they work. Every test they try that failed would strengthen their case. It seems to happen the other way round, though. What we get is egotistical scientist has an idea, publishes, then spends his entire career promoting and justifying the original thought - not that I have a particular man (sic) in mind!
The burden of proof WOULD be on any credible skeptics of the conclusions of a century of massively researched and very solid scientific findings, IF there were any such credible skeptics.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
As modern physics tells us that carbon dioxide increases atmospheric heat retention and measurements show, as does scientific knowledge, calculations and 'models' that the shoulders of the CO2 absorption band is the major forcing behind the current warming then I would think so. Especially since even those whom they put so much trust in, such as Lindzen and Spencer, even state this and give an estimate as to the forcing involved due to a doubling in the same amount that 'warmist' scientists do. To those posting in this thread that doubt the effects a doubling of CO2 has and state something like "CO2 has very little warming capability left' I once again challenge you to provide scientific evidence for this in the form of measurements. This, of course, can only be down by looking at the frequencies involved with the warming. And none of this "CO2 absorbs most of it's radiation in the first 100ppm". In that statement you are missing the data that shows the current warming is not attributable to CO2, something I have provided as evidence for.
NO. the fate of millions lie with decisions, based on climate change, energy policies, economic climate, jobs, changes to our environment (ugly windmills etc) power shortages, and so on, all depend on climate scientist getting their predictions right.
They tell us we must change the way we live, so they better give us damn good reasons.
Should the crackpots who deny that CO2 is a benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet be forced to give up their AlGore church of climatology membership cards?
CO2 levels are up from what log sheets . were in 1912 were the records taken from and in 1825 who took those records . so you can get them in the ice , You told us they were gone. no ice caps . One Volcano releases more co2 in 24 hours than the people of earth can in a year. So witch is mans co2 and witch is the Earths .
No and I don't have to prove to you that Satan doesn't exist, even though millions of people claim he does and will claim the souls of millions of sinners.
According to many people, adding massive amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could lead to millions of deaths. Others say that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is harmless. Shouldn't it be those who claim that carbon dioxide is harmless be the ones who should prove their case?
