Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[SV Fan]

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group is in the news again, surprising climate change skeptics with results from a new study that shows the earth has warmed 2.5 °F over the past 250 years, and 1.5 °F over the past fifty years, and that "essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases." Dr. Richard Muller, who heads the BEST team, now considers himself a "converted skeptic," which he wrote about in a New York Times op-ed on Saturday:

I said this many times before but the Earth is considered to be like 4.5 Billion years old, 250 years in the scoop of that is an insignificant amount of time to come up with any scientific proof of weather patterns

 

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/climate-change/index.html

(CNN) -- What do the 2010 heat wave in Russia, last year's Texas drought, and the 2003 heat wave in Europe have in common?

All are examples of extreme weather caused by climate change, according to a new study from NASA scientist James Hansen.

"This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened," he wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece meant to accompany the study.


"Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change."

The study, which was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks at the past six decades of global temperatures and finds what Hansen described as a "stunning" rise in the frequency of extremely hot summers.

It compared what is happening now to what was happening between 1951-1980. In those years, extremely hot temperatures covered less than 0.2% of the planet. Now, those temperatures cover about 10% of the land area, the study said.

It dismissed the idea that specific weather patterns are by themselves sufficient to explain today's extreme anomalies. Phenomena like La Nina have always been around, but large areas of extreme warming have only come about with climate change, the study said.

"The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills," wrote Hansen.

Hansen directs research at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is a longtime environmental activist.

 

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/15/us/louisiana-drinking-water/index.html

* The drought has lowered the river, letting Gulf of Mexico water enter
* "The water's perfectly safe to drink," says emergency preparedness official
* The salty water has traveled nearly 90 miles into the river
* Caution urged for dialysis patients and low-sodium dieters

(CNN) -- A drought in Louisiana has lowered the Mississippi River, leaving its southern tip awash in saline from the Gulf of Mexico and prompting health officials in Plaquemines Parish to issue a drinking water advisory.

"The water's perfectly safe to drink," said Guy Laigast, director of the parish's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, in a telephone interview Wednesday. "It's just got the elevated salt."

With the mighty Mississippi near its all-time low, the salty water has crept in as a wedge, he said. Because salty water is denser than fresh, it tends to collect at lower depths, he said.

Watch dryness overtake U.S.

But pipes that pull drinking water from the river tend to draw from those same depths, Laigast said.


The logical fix would be simply to raise the pipes, but that would be tough to do. "You're talking about large pipes that have been down there for years and years and years," he said.

The wedge has been moving up the Mississippi since early this month, reaching mile marker 89 -- signifying that many miles from the river mouth -- by Wednesday, Laigast said.

"You can taste a little salt water content," he said. "But it's nothing that's harmful."

Anyone on dialysis and/or low-sodium diets was urged to check with a health care provider about drinking parish water.

Salt, of course, is sodium chloride. Neither sodium nor chloride is considered a known health threat, the parish said, citing EPA data. Chloride, considered a secondary contaminant, could affect drinking water's taste, smell and color.

EPA's secondary maximum contaminant level for chloride is 250 mg/L. The maximum chloride detected in drinking water in the Port Sulphur area was 362 mg/L, it said.

Sodium is classified neither as a primary nor secondary contaminant, but it can adversely affect people on low-sodium diets for health reasons, such as high-blood pressure or kidney disease, the EPA said.

Sodium levels in the parish's drinking water ranged from 60 mg/L to 200 mg/L -- far exceeding the EPA recommendation of no more than 20 mg/L for people on very low sodium diets.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers started work Wednesday on an $8 million underwater levee -- positioned at mile marker 64, just below Belle Chasse -- to stop the wedge's progress, as it did with success during a similar drought 24 years ago. "It's a sill," Laigast said. "It (the salt water) runs into that levee just as if it was a dry wall."

Interactive map: Drought conditions

He predicted the effects of the sill will become apparent on the salinity of the water within the week.

In addition to creating the sill, officials are planning to take 2.5 million gallons of fresh water from farther north in the river -- past mile marker 100 -- then carry it by barge southward "and suck it into our water treatment facilities," Laigast said.

The salt water in the river has had a benefit for some anglers: "The redfish follow it up, so we're able to fish right in the Mississippi now instead of having to go to the gulf," he said.

The drought's impact has had effects that extend beyond the river. It led the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday to designate four Louisiana parishes and seven contiguous parishes as natural disaster areas.

Morehouse, Richland, Union and West Carroll parishes were declared primary natural disaster areas. The seven parishes named as contiguous disaster areas were: Caldwell, Claiborne, East Carroll, Franklin, Lincoln, Madison and Ouachita, according to the Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry.

According to the department, 63% of the nation's hay acreage and about 73% of cattle acreage are in drought areas, as are about 87% of U.S. corn and 85% of soybeans.

 

[:eek:]

Extraordinary melting of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has shattered the all-time low sea ice extent record set in September 2007, and sea ice continues to decline far below what has ever been observed. The new sea ice record was set on August 26, a full three weeks before the usual end of the melting season, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Every major scientific institution that tracks Arctic sea ice agrees that new records for low ice area, extent, and volume have been set. These organizations include the University of Washington Polar Science Center (a new record for low ice volume), the Nansen Environmental & Remote Sensing Center in Norway, and the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. A comprehensive collection of sea ice graphs shows the full story. Satellite records of sea ice extent date back to 1979, though a 2011 study by Kinnard et al. shows that the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years (see a more detailed article on this over at skepticalscience.com.) The latest September 5, 2012 extent of 3.5 million square kilometers is approximately a 50% reduction in the area of Arctic covered by sea ice, compared to the average from 1979 - 2000. The ice continues to melt, and has not reached the low for this year yet.

Why the Arctic sea ice is important
Arctic sea ice is an important component of the global climate system. The polar ice caps help to regulate global temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. White snow and ice at the poles reflects sunlight, but dark ocean absorbs it. Replacing bright sea ice with dark ocean is a recipe for more and faster global warming. The Autumn air temperature over the Arctic has increased by 4 - 6°F in the past decade, and we could already be seeing the impacts of this warming in the mid-latitudes, by an increase in extreme weather events. Another non-trivial impact of the absence of sea ice is increased melting in Greenland. We already saw an unprecedented melting event in Greenland this year, and as warming continues, the likelihood of these events increase.

 

[Hotwire]

Extraordinary melting of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has shattered the all-time low sea ice extent record set in September 2007, and sea ice continues to decline far below what has ever been observed. The new sea ice record was set on August 26, a full three weeks before the usual end of the melting season, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Every major scientific institution that tracks Arctic sea ice agrees that new records for low ice area, extent, and volume have been set. These organizations include the University of Washington Polar Science Center (a new record for low ice volume), the Nansen Environmental & Remote Sensing Center in Norway, and the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. A comprehensive collection of sea ice graphs shows the full story. Satellite records of sea ice extent date back to 1979, though a 2011 study by Kinnard et al. shows that the Arctic hasn't seen a melt like this for at least 1,450 years (see a more detailed article on this over at skepticalscience.com.) The latest September 5, 2012 extent of 3.5 million square kilometers is approximately a 50% reduction in the area of Arctic covered by sea ice, compared to the average from 1979 - 2000. The ice continues to melt, and has not reached the low for this year yet.

Why the Arctic sea ice is important
Arctic sea ice is an important component of the global climate system. The polar ice caps help to regulate global temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. White snow and ice at the poles reflects sunlight, but dark ocean absorbs it. Replacing bright sea ice with dark ocean is a recipe for more and faster global warming. The Autumn air temperature over the Arctic has increased by 4 - 6°F in the past decade, and we could already be seeing the impacts of this warming in the mid-latitudes, by an increase in extreme weather events. Another non-trivial impact of the absence of sea ice is increased melting in Greenland. We already saw an unprecedented melting event in Greenland this year, and as warming continues, the likelihood of these events increase.

"Ah, it's all a bunch of BS!" - Rich Industrialist

 

[Hobgoblin]

"Ah, it's all a bunch of BS!" - Rich Industrialist

And average people sticking their fingers in their ears singing "LA LA LA LA LA!!"

 

[Hotwire]

And average people sticking their fingers in their ears singing "LA LA LA LA LA!!"

Pretty much.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Well I think you can draw the conclusion that climate/weather changes(it's a rather obvious observation), now what causes that is a different question

This is very true. However, there are other lines of evidence to consider, and they can be very informative with respect to causes.

1. Simple fact is if what they say is true, there will be places on this earth that will benefit positively from it. I never once see them mention that in there messages. I know if it's true in the big picture it will suck for alot of people but you can't say it's doom and gloom for everybody when that isn't most likely the truth

Two things:

1) None of these systems and populations exist in a vacuum. It is a mistake to assume a small role for established ecological systems when considering the well-being of humans (or any other population, for that matter). Upheaval of these systems can involve much, much more than a simple change in temperature. Ecological interactions are key, and a disruption of these relationships can result in dire consequences, especially insofar as agriculture is concerned (not to mention the potential effect on the stability of ecosystem goods and services).

2) They probably don't mention this because it misses the point. The fact that a few, potentially isolated systems may prosper doesn't do much at all to offset the fact that the majority of systems will likely experience enormous trauma (an example being oceans, which are an expansive, pertinent and particularly sensitive system).

2. Polar Bears - they kept showing us this picture of a Polar Bear swimming saying they dieing off because of humans. Only problem is Polar Bear population has increased and Polar Bears actually would benefit from a slightly warmer climate since it gives them more time to hunt

How much of this population increase is a direct result of reduced hunting pressure from humans? Could these population increases level off and ultimately begin to decline once again when reduced hunting pressure no longer bolsters populations in the face of reduced ice cover?

Also, could you perhaps expand upon your comment about hunting time? Given their rather established behavioral patterns with respect to hunting, and given the rather obvious fact that their cryptic coloration is an enormous aid with respect to their hunting efforts and strategies, I'm not convinced that this will not have an overall negative impact.

There's also some rather intriguing evidence of assimilation/hybridization with northern grizzly bear populations, which is actually pretty cool. At least a portion of their genome will continue to exist in some form, which would be a bittersweet end to the polar bear (perhaps preferable to total extinction). There's also the question of whether the importance of their existence in general is lost when the ecosystem to which they're most significant in terms of impact and maintenance is also lost (in other words, whether it even matters if they're going extinct if the entire habitat has already been extinguished or altered to an unrecognizable state).

It's an interesting discussion, in any case.

3. The Sun - when I see a scientist say the Sun has no effect on the Earth temperature, then I can tell they are full of crap. When other planets and moons in our solar system have similar climate changes do you think there might be one common factor?

We have to be very careful when we draw these conclusions, and you're being rather vague here. Without specifics, drawing conclusions seems to be a dangerous practice. How many of these planets/moons have atmospheres, and how many do not? What is their overall atmospheric composition? To what degree are their climates shifting?

I've seen many bring up Mars as an example, but in so doing they usually forget that its atmosphere is almost entirely made up of Carbon dioxide. In the absence of atmosphere-depleting solar storms, we might expect a steady increase in temperature, until such a storm further depletes its atmosphere, causing a drop in overall temperature due to a decrease in insulation. It is dangerous to use this as a direct comparison to processes on earth, as Mars is far more subject to this effect owing to its relative lack of a protective magnetic field.

4. Weird Science - Al Gore promised us the Earth would heat up in a linear fashion, problem I had with this is with my limited science knowledge if the ice caps melted and the cold water mixed with the warm ocean, I knew this could cause weird weather patterns depending on current flow. Ironically my prediction might be right if you look at weather patterns of the past 10 years since Gore's movie, but question is why would my high school science knowledge be more right then so called experts who came up with that graph for him to show us. Somebody who had any knowledge of studying weather patterns probably could figure out how current flow could potentially effect certain areas

Could you be more specific here? You should be careful not to confuse Gore's interpretation of the data with an inaccuracy or misinterpretation on the part of the climate scientists themselves. Gore is not a scientist.

5. Ice Age fears of the 70s - That theory fell flat on it's ass. When you see a few people who were spear heading that movement sort of go into hibernation for 15 years then spearhead the global warming movement, it's hard to take them seriously.

While this is understandable, it is of note that climate science was more or less in its infancy at the time. Without understanding WHY the scientists made these predictions (context is immensely important), it is easy to make these criticisms. I'm relatively unfamiliar with the assumptions that were underlying this conclusion, but if you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

I probably would be more open to the idea that humans are responsible if the people who are pushing it aren't so doom and gloom about it and were more honest about potential issues with the theory. To me Climate Change has become a theology, that if you don't agree with the guys at the top, they go out of there way to villifey you(even if somebody might have a good point). If they ever wanted a serious discussion about Climate change they need to get a bunch of scientists on both sides to discuss potential flaws(like a point/counter point type of meeting) instead it's more like if you don't agree with the so called majority they do everything to silence you. I remember 10 years ago it was no scientists deny Climate Change, now whenever I hear Gore talk he is like well only 2% deny it. I question what happened in 10 years that 2% changed there mind(I also question when he refers to scientists, does he mean all scientists in general or ones who specifically study weather/climate. Whenever he throws out any numbers I do believe he is talking about scientists in general, which to me comes off as distorting the facts because lets be honest here a scientist whose main field of study is the human body will have limited knowledge of weather patterns)

Do you have actual statistics with respect to the growth in the number of climate-change deniers over the past couple of decades? Or is this conjecture?

Also, there are a number of scientists who don't work directly on climate that can be incredibly informative with respect to its effects. One of the projects I'm considering working on is adaptive hybridization in some Pacific corals with respect to tolerance for increased temperature and/or acidity. Another potential project is one looking at the effects of climate change on temporal isolation in corals, or on reproductive isolation in general (basically the effects of climate change on species boundaries). So while I'm technically considered a biologist, it is my business to be at least relatively informed of current climate trends, and some of the information I develop could be incredibly useful in discussion of climate change and, in particular, its impacts.

 

[Hobgoblin]

2. Polar Bears - they kept showing us this picture of a Polar Bear swimming saying they dieing off because of humans. Only problem is Polar Bear population has increased and Polar Bears actually would benefit from a slightly warmer climate since it gives them more time to hunt

IUCN is an international organization that monitors endangered species. They are used to determine listing on the Endangered Species Act. They are listing polar bears as decreasing.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0

 

[Donut]

IUCN is an international organization that monitors endangered species. They are used to determine listing on the Endangered Species Act. They are listing polar bears as decreasing.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0

Jon Peters would be disappointed

 

[Hobgoblin]

Jon Peters would be disappointed

Who is Jon Peters?

 

[SV Fan]

Could you be more specific here? You should be careful not to confuse Gore's interpretation of the data with an inaccuracy or misinterpretation on the part of the climate scientists themselves. Gore is not a scientist.

I just remember a chart Gore used in his movie to show the weather to get progressively hotter each year, it basically was a line that was slowly going up then you see this huge line rocketing up to predict future weather(in terms of heat)

It also wasn't Gore's prediction of the data it was a chart he made up based on scientists data. As I said to me at least it just felt like an overly simplistic view of what would happen if the earth warmed up(and to me the ice caps melting causes cold water flow into the ocean was one huge factor the charts didn't take into consideration)

IUCN is an international organization that monitors endangered species. They are used to determine listing on the Endangered Species Act. They are listing polar bears as decreasing.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

Their status ranges from a "vulnerable" to "endangered" and could be declared "threatened" if the U.S. decides the polar bear is collateral damage of climate change.

Nobody talks about "overpopulated" when discussing the bears' outlook.

Yet despite the Canadian government 's $150-million commitment last week to fund 44 International Polar Year research projects, a key question is not up for detailed scientific assessment: If the polar bear is the 650-kilogram canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING?

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

 

[Hotwire]

My biggest issue with climate change is this, the worst case scenarios, depending on which side is wrong. If the people who say climate changes real, if those guys are wrong, what's the worst that happens, we end up cleaning up the planet? And on the other hand, if the people who say it's a bunch of BS, if they're wrong then what happens?

 

[Hobgoblin]

So wait a minute. My article says that polar bears depend on sea ice for survival and your article says that "polar bears do live on ice and satellite photos show the sea ice is down 7.7% in the last decade. So something is happening up there." But the bears are in no danger?

How can their population be increasing when the ice they need is decreasing? Sorry, I dont buy it.

 

[SV Fan]

My biggest issue with climate change is this, the worst case scenarios, depending on which side is wrong. If the people who say climate changes real, if those guys are wrong, what's the worst that happens, we end up cleaning up the planet? And on the other hand, if the people who say it's a bunch of BS, if they're wrong then what happens?

I think this was the biggest problem with Global Warming, the people who promote it do it trying to use doom and gloom scenarios where the coastlines of the US will be flooded in 10 years, so when you don't see it happening it's like well the theory is full of BS(which is why they changed the term to climate change)

As I said above when it comes to science they should have been way more honest about stuff(saying they aren't %100 sure how things will happen but it can have negative effects) instead of the doom and gloom scenarios they come up with. As I pointed out above the current flow of water to me was a issue when I first saw them predicting future weather patterns. While we can't 100% link current flow to all the hurricanes we had over the past 10 years I do think the climate change people would have more credibility if they listed a bunch of potential problems 10 years ago instead of the doom and gloom 1 case only scenario they came up with

It just felt like in the early 2000s when Global Warming was at full force they tried talking to people like they were in grade 2(almost like they were politicans) instead of having a more adult conversation about the potential issues all while being humble how it's hard to predict what potentially could happen. The whole problem making bold predictions what will happen is when they don't happen exactly how you claim it will, makes your case lose credibility

 

[SV Fan]

So wait a minute. My article says that polar bears depend on sea ice for survival and your article says that "polar bears do live on ice and satellite photos show the sea ice is down 7.7% in the last decade. So something is happening up there." But the bears are in no danger?

How can their population be increasing when the ice they need is decreasing? Sorry, I dont buy it.

If their is more warmer conditions, the polar bears have more time to hunt and get food

 

[Donut]

Who is Jon Peters?

A Hollywood Producer that once wanted Brainiac to fight Polar Bears in Antarctica in a Superman movie that never got made.

Watch the Kevin Smith Superman thing on Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUwkqeI7XWk

 

[Hobgoblin]

If their is more warmer conditions, the polar bears have more time to hunt and get food

They also depend on the ice to travel long distances over the Arctic Ocean. Without the ice they have to swim and they just cant swim that far. They try and drown. So finding more food is irrelevant when you cant get to it. As my article said, the bears are very finely adapted to cold arctic weather and cant adapt to warmer temps. Bear cubs are also being born in smaller sizes, reducing the chance that they will survive to adulthood.

 

[Hotwire]

I think this was the biggest problem with Global Warming, the people who promote it do it trying to use doom and gloom scenarios where the coastlines of the US will be flooded in 10 years, so when you don't see it happening it's like well the theory is full of BS(which is why they changed the term to climate change)

As I said above when it comes to science they should have been way more honest about stuff(saying they aren't %100 sure how things will happen but it can have negative effects) instead of the doom and gloom scenarios they come up with. As I pointed out above the current flow of water to me was a issue when I first saw them predicting future weather patterns. While we can't 100% link current flow to all the hurricanes we had over the past 10 years I do think the climate change people would have more credibility if they listed a bunch of potential problems 10 years ago instead of the doom and gloom 1 case only scenario they came up with

It just felt like in the early 2000s when Global Warming was at full force they tried talking to people like they were in grade 2(almost like they were politicans) instead of having a more adult conversation about the potential issues all while being humble how it's hard to predict what potentially could happen. The whole problem making bold predictions what will happen is when they don't happen exactly how you claim it makes your case lose credibility

You said a lot without really saying much. My point was that following the advice of those who say climate change is real, would ultimately have a better outcome for the planet, even if they ended up being wrong. Whereas, following the advice of those who say it's BS, could have a cataclysmic outcome if they ended up being wrong.

 

[SV Fan]

They also depend on the ice to travel long distances over the Arctic Ocean. Without the ice they have to swim and they just cant swim that far. They try and drown. So finding more food is irrelevant when you cant get to it. As my article said, the bears are very finely adapted to cold arctic weather and cant adapt to warmer temps. Bear cubs are also being born in smaller sizes, reducing the chance that they will survive to adulthood.

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/44358

Just how far can a polar bear swim?

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are capable of swimming incredible distances, according to a new study published in Zoology, which recorded polar bears regularly swimming over 30 miles (48 kilometers) and, in one case, as far as 220 miles (354 kilometers). The researchers believe the ability of polar bears to tackle such long-distance swims may help them survive as seasonal sea ice vanishes due to climate change.

 

[Hobgoblin]

You said a lot without really saying much. My point was that following the advice of those who say climate change is real, would ultimately have a better outcome for the planet, even if they ended up being wrong. Whereas, following the advice of those who say it's BS, could have a cataclysmic outcome if they ended up being wrong.

Quoted for truth.

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/44358

So one of them swam 220 miles. That one, exceptional case. The span is usually much more than 30 miles, which is too far for a cub to swim.

 

[SV Fan]

So one of them swam 220 miles. That one, exceptional case. The span is usually much more than 30 miles, which is too far for a cub to swim.

If you read later in the article

Oakley and other scientists with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) used GPS collars to track 52 female bears from 2004 and 2009 recording 50 swims with an average of 96 miles (154 kilometers). The scientists even found evidence that cubs may be able to survive such swims as well. Out of ten observed polar bears with cubs, the scientists were able to find that six of them still had their cubs a year later.

 

[Hobgoblin]

If you read later in the article

Will they be able to do that as the sea ice continues to melt?

 

[SV Fan]

You said a lot without really saying much. My point was that following the advice of those who say climate change is real, would ultimately have a better outcome for the planet, even if they ended up being wrong. Whereas, following the advice of those who say it's BS, could have a cataclysmic outcome if they ended up being wrong.

This kind of logic is like when a Christian says you should believe in God because it's the safer choice just incase he does exist(ie and if he doesn't what do you have to lose) and yes I have heard that argument made before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

 

[Hobgoblin]

This kind of logic is like when a Christian says you should believe in God because it's the safer choice just incase he does exist(ie and if he doesn't what do you have to lose) and yes I have heard that argument made before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

There is a lot more evidence that climate change is real than God existing.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/world/drought-around-world/index.html?hpt=hp_c3