Bill Nye the Science Guy: Climate change deniers are ‘unpatriotic’

[mRx 16]

Hey Matt.

If you can believe that science can reasonably measure the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the years and that level has been steadily increasing over the last half century and science can also reasonably measure the amount of CO2 emitted from automobiles and industry, is it not also reasonable to conclude that such emissions are having a significant impact on the earth's climate? That cuts to the heart of the theory of Global Warming. Take any other evidence and that alone makes a compelling argument...unless of course one dismisses that science can possibly measure atmospheric CO2 levels.

Hey Steven,

Even if they can reasonably measure the level of one variable in comparison to another, it still doesn't establish a causal relationship. There may be a strong correlational significance (presumably established by the correlational coefficient), but that is no basis for cause or impact. I'm no scientist--nor have I claimed to be--but correlation alone doesn't prove causation.

Here's an example: In my biopsych course, I read about an experiment which examined the relation between pre-frontal cortex activity--the part of the brain thought to be responsible for human reason, logic, consequence, and apathy-- (as measured by positron-emission-tomography (PET) scans (which is quite a reasonable measurement). The results are amazing. There is a strong and significant correlation between non-deprived killers and reduced pre-frontal cortex activity. However, there is no scientific evidence to assume that reduced pre-frontal cortex activity causes individuals to become killers (yet.) There's only correlation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hey Steven,

Even if they can reasonably measure the level of one variable in comparison to another, it still doesn't establish a causal relationship. There may be a strong correlational significance (presumably established by the correlational coefficient), but that is no basis for cause or impact. I'm no scientist--nor have I claimed to be--but correlation alone doesn't prove causation.

I'm no scientist either and I usually avoid debating the science of Global Warming, but the basic concept is pretty solid and easy to understand. Science can prove on a small scale that CO2 traps atmospheric heat (greenhouse effect). We wouldn't be alive today without the heat trapping properties of various gases in the atmosphere. According to measurements (assuming that such measurements are reliable), the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has never been more than 300ppm in the last half million years. Right now, it is at about 360 (I'm not exactly sure on the number), but it is estimated to rise to 400ppm within the next 10 years. Such an increase can be scaled and demonstrated in a lab to show a causation of rising atmospheric temperature.

What I've seen from those who doubt or flat out deny the science, their reasons vary from, "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas" or "we can't accurately measure CO2 levels" to "a rise in the earth's temperature won't be catastrophic." One only needs to imagine the worst if CO2 levels continue to rise at the rate it has been over the last half century, especially if we do nothing to reduce human made CO2 emissions. Sure, the predictability of the consequences is the most difficult part, but the history of the earth clues us into what kinds of consequences we can expect. There is a very real possibility that we could push ourselves to extinction...more real than any nuclear holocaust. If the threat of nuclear holocaust could effect our attitudes, the very real threat of human extinction should get our attention.