Fabulous Example of How The Climate Debate is Broken

A climate alarmist posts a "Bet" on a site called Truthmarket that she obviously believes is a dagger to the heart of climate skeptics.  Heck, she is putting up $5,000 of her own money on it.  The amazing part is that the proposition she is betting on is entirely beside the point.  She is betting on the truth of a statement that many skeptics would agree with.

This is how the climate debate has gone wrong.  Alarmists are trying to shift the debate from the key points they can't prove to facile points they can.  And the media lets them get away with it.

Read about it in my post this week at Forbes.com


  1. MingoV:

    "... the vast majority of science-based skeptics accept part one, where man-made CO2 causes some incremental warming...."

    They are wrong to do so. Planet Earth cannot have a greenhouse gases effect because there are no walls and roofs to separate inside from outside. Increased solar warming of the air due to more "greenhouse" gases ALWAYS is balanced by decreased warming of the surface. If a CO2 molecule in the air absorbs a solar photon, that is ONE LESS photon available to warm the surface. We can quadruple the water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane in the air, but planet earth will not get warmer because the air is in dynamic thermal equilibrium with the surface. The scientists who believe in a greenhouse gas effect for planet Earth have not considered these simple concepts.

  2. obloodyhell:

    Warren, your own commentary does what you’re complaining about. How many “scientists believe” in a proposition is utterly irrelevant to the Scientific Method in EVERY WAY, and any competent scientist KNOWS this.

    Science isn’t about consensus, it’s about following a set of rules which do a functionally effective job of ascertaining the truth value of an assertion. How many people believe or don’t believe in something is a matter of Faith, not Science.

    By allowing them to even ask this question as though it had ANY merit, you’re falling into their trap.

  3. DrTorch:

    I don't know that she'd win that bet. In my last two jobs I can think of several PhD scientists who have all been adamant that the current CAGW hypothesis (or hypotheses) is wrong. Very wrong. All had reviewed the data.
    There was only one outspoken supporter, he had a MS in meteorology and would get exaspirated that we didn't just accept the consensus. There were probably other supporters, but they were quiet, which usually means they know it's not true but there's a chance to get money from the situation.
    I think 5% is a pretty low bar, and it might be winnable.