Is claiming "the burned of proof lies with climate scientists" a way to maintain eternal denial?

Question

In a recent question, four seperate global warming deniers claimed that 'the burden of proof' with regards to AGW lies with those supporting the theory (climate scientists).

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080520104146AAaswUQ&r=w#RsR4WTC1UGLXAOZlOfd26Pr22G__DAD6hVJeJW5TpX.ayPFJ4ZHX

However, it's simply not possible to prove a theory. A scientific theory can only be disproven. By requiring "proof", are global warming deniers ensuring that they can always maintain their denial?

Or, if we take the term more loosely, considering that there's a scientific consensus that the AGW theory is correct (based on the overwhelming scientific evidence), has not the burden of proof been met as much as is possible?

Should we also reject the evolutionary theory until it can meet "the burden of proof"?

Answer 1

It may not be possible to prove a theory, but a shred of evidence would help. So far there is none to support global warming.  

Denying the acceptance of unqualified data is where the 'deniers' stand.  

Global warming is a costly hoax, for political...not environmental reasons.  I take exception with your suggestion that supporters of global warming are climate scientists.  Most are not.  There is a 'core' of about 50 or so scientists driving the global warming ship, and many of them are from outside climatic science.  The rest of the group is made up of self-serving politicians, lobbyists and people who have invested financially in the idea.

Answer 2

wow this is all way above me

i am still in the 3rd dimension.

I would have thought that Global warming proves itself adequately, if we only take note of what is going on.

Deniel must be a burden on reality

.

the evolutionary theory of Darwin has crashed ,

all the humanoids lived at the same time

there were not millions of years between them

and there are  genes in our bodies which are not in the primates

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm

The bible seems closer to the truth

,Although primates WERE part of the recipe.

but it was genetic engineering and cloning that got the job done ,not Holy magic

So Darwin was half right as was the Bible

Halaluyah

Answer 3

It's exactly like saying "there are no transitional fossils" in the fossil record. The fact that there *are* doesn't stop them from saying it anyways. The parallels between evolution denial and GW denial are so strong, that someone should make a text book about it and start a new field like "denialogy". It really could be made into a science.

We are living out the nightmare of Carl Sagan in "the demon haunted universe"- where solid facts are no longer given any more credit than baseless uninformed opinions.

Answer 4

The problem, IMO, is that those posters are completely disingenuous.  If they had actually read a few scientific journal articles on the subject and pointed out areas of weakness, then they'd have some credibility.  But instead, all they've done is demonstrate their own ignorance of the subject.

Answer 5

I disagree.  Theories are proven and disproven everyday.  There are theories of what causes cancer and what cures cancer.  Medications are created that will attack the tumor as subscribed in the theory.  If they work, this proves the theory, in not, the theory is disproven.  At this time we learn more and develop new theories if applicable.

Every idea is a theory until it becomes a reality, and can be duplicated and verified by others.  If it can't then it's just a theory.  Theories are not facts, they are not the truth, they are not knowledge.

What the believers are trying to get us to accept is that they can predict the future, which is impossible.  Impossibilities are not science, that are not truth, and are not knowledge.  

No one can know if the climate is going to be warmer or colder any time in the future.  One can only guess.

Answer 6

The global warming question is backwards from the way science typically works.  For pharmaceutical drug, for example, the idea is not to make any condition worse.  Using statistical analysis on test set up to evaluate drug efficiency, scientist have  to be 99% confident or more that the drug is having a positive effect.  If is is clear that it is not of that the effect is negative, the trails are stopped and we go on with business as usual.

Climate change question is such a bugger because for a couple of reasons.  The models used are not statistical models. They are mechanistic models based on physics (the climate models anyway).  Confidence intervals are a statistical term most people know about but we don't get a good measure of these from climate models.  Instead, we have to do sensitivity analysis and try to see how much answers change as model parameter values change.  It takes a lot of expert judgment to figure out what parameter changes are realistic.  It is also hard to assign a confidence value based on sensitivity analysis, but I think there are some techniques I am not well versed in to help (Monte Carlo techniques and such).  

Another thing, with the pharmaceutical drug example, business as usual means no change and no harmful effect as a result.  This is exactly backwards for the climate change question, which is why the scientific community, with limited "confidence" in the results,  tends to take a conservative view.  Scientist are very confident of some things but do not have high certainty in the harm AGW may cause people. Conservative means they want to protect people.  To be conservative for drugs, scientist have to be 99% sure the drugs work.  To be conservative for climate change, since "business as unusual" may cause the most harm, most scientist think some action is needed.  Scientist are not 99% certain that business as usual would not harm people.  They feel action is warranted because of this. This is the most protective course of action.  The burden of proof is on those who want to take a less protective course of action because that could result in more harm to people.

Balance in our response is important. The needs of the future societies have to be balanced with the needs current societies. That is what actually needs to be discussed.

Answer 7

No, it's essentially a way of saying they're not convinced.  When one makes such a statement such as "humans are causing global warming", the burden of proof does lie with those that make the statement.  The phrase "burden of proof" in itself in this context does not necessarily mean it must be absolutely proven, but it does mean that enough evidence must be supplied that will convince even the most skeptical.  And what you consider overwhelming evidence, I and many others, consider trivial, unreliable, biased, refutable, and flimsy.  It's not that most skepics are closed to any possiblity of being wrong, but as it stands, the evidence as you so clearly adhere to, doesn't make a good enough case against the opposition.  Maybe we "deniers" as you like to refer to us just have a bit more of a critical eye.  Perhaps it's you who's getting blinded by "overwhelming" evidence to actually see the other side.

Answer 8

No its not.  Its people asking for some proof that they can see and understand, not some 500+ page scientific research paper that most people don’t have time to read.  Its people asking for an actual answer rather than hysterics claiming that they must be in the pockets of “big oil” because they don’t just fall in line with the popular trend.  

There are plenty of holes in the so called global warming fact.  That big graph in an “Inconvenient Truth” showing CO2 rising and temperature rising.  Did you notice how it was zoomed out real far?  Do you know why?  If you look at it closely you’d see a lot of up and down, not the nice neat upward curve alarmists wanted everyone to see.  Also you would also see that in many cases temperature rose before CO2, not the other way around as the alarmists claim.

The big thing though is a lot of people though want to have a comfortable lifestyle for themselves, and their families.  People don't want to have to live like their ancestors did just to try to get by.  People worked for what they have and where they are today, they want to be able to enjoy that.  Not give it all up, especially when even if everyone did and there was full compliance with Kyoto and other measures it wouldn't really make any difference in terms stopping an increasing temperature.

Additional Details:

If you understand the evidence so well, how come there were temperature swings, both up and down, many times in the past, before humans started having such a supposed great impact on the environment or before modern man was even around?  Did cavemen or the dinosaurs have coal fired powerplants and SUVs that we didn’t know about?  No its more likely due to natural causes.  One of my big problems with global warming alarmists is they act like the earth was at a constant temperature prior to when man started building all these polluting things.  They don’t acknowledge that the earth’s temperature has naturally varied over time.  

I explain this by the fact that some of the scientists who are the loudest alarmists may be in the pockets of environmentalists.  Like how they claim all of us deniers are in the pockets of big oil or big business.  Scientists are like everyone else, they go where the money is, and if there is money to write about global warming there are scientists who will do it.

Answer 9

I don't remember making that claim.

You know Dana, Bob thinks that AGW has been "proved". Kind of funny, eh? But of course, I think we can agree that those that think that AGW must be proved, or that it has been proven, are motivated by a misunderstanding of science or political reasons, right?

...and when you say "'the burned of proof lies with climate scientists'", I assume you meant "'the burden of proof....'"?

Answer 10

Falsifiablility.  The eternal refrain is "you can't prove it".  I'll use chemical industy pabulum as an example.  

Can't prove chemicals cause problems at ppb concentrations.  

Can't prove multiple chemical interactions cause problems at low concentrations.  

Can't prove that a specific chemical caused a specific effect.

Can't prove that your statistical analysis associating chemical exposure to cancer is valid.

Can't prove that your valid statistical analysis is extensible to the current cluster of health problems.

Finally, after the chemical has been in use for many years, caused untold damage, the final nail is put in the coffin.  Then years of legal wrangling commence.  Then years of legislative wrangling begins.  

Then in the end, production and use gets moved to a country where it hasn't been banned yet!  Repeat.

We are at the beginning of this process.  All the theoretical work, all the experimental work, all the modeling work, all the observational work points to fossil fuel derived CO2 as the cause.  But it still has a smidge of non-falsifiablilty because this is an uncontrolled global experiment and the only absolute final falsifiable proof will come when the climate changes in accordance with the predictions.

This process is called "what-if-ing something to death"

And to the death of us all it will be.

Please slap me down and show me the bit again where the climate is changing in accordance with the models.

Answer 11

I'm still trying to understand how you can tie evolution into GW? Is this another rant? Consensus and theory are great, just come down to Terra Firma every now and then.

Answer 12

It is a philosophical impossibility to prove a theory.  You can only falsify one.  

In the context of climate change, essentially all the credible data supports the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is affecting radiative transfer in the atmosphere and therefore modifying climate.