Some people believe in it, and some do not.
Some accept the “evidence” and some do not
Some attempt to explain away the “evidence” and point out inconsistencies
You could make the same three observations about the existence of human-created global warming.
Unlike the inference from E=MC2 that we could make a bomb, the existence of the Loch Ness monster (or global warming) is not amenable to being scientifically tested under controlled conditions to yield a definitive result.
The existence or otherwise of Nessie has no impact on the world, so people can believe whatever they like, whatever makes them feel most comfortable.
(It’s a shame we can’t say the same about human-created global warming - look at the billions being spent by countries closing down coal-fired power stations and buying wind-farms; based on no solid evidence that there is a need to do so. )
There is zero evidence for the Loch Ness monster. The evidence for human-induced global warming is overwhelming. The OP is comparing apples and oranges.
You have loaded this observation with the unstated assumption that the existence of opposing beliefs and opinions necessarily implies uncertainty. The assumption is wrong. It’s similar to the “false balance” fallacy of journalism. Many people are idiots, and some opinions are simply wrong. You have the right to hold any belief you choose, but that belief doesn’t merit any respect unless it’s supported by evidence.
There’s no possible way to prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist … this is pseudo-science …
However, it actually really easy to prove Global Warming isn’t happening … just measure the temperatures over 100 years … and here’s the results … this is real science !!!
A few weeks ago in the far Canadian Arctic temps were 40 degrees F above normal. The ice coverage in the Arctic started to go down. In October. When ice normally increases fastest.
The Loch Ness monster DID exist. Then, a critical mass of people stopped believing. This caused Nessie and all evidence of Nessie to vanish. If, one day, enough people believed in Nessie he would return.
WATCHWOLF49
However, it actually really easy to prove Global Warming isn’t happening … just measure the temperatures over 100 years … and here’s the results … this is real science !!!
FTG
A few weeks ago in the far Canadian Arctic temps were 40 degrees F above normal. The ice coverage in the Arctic started to go down. In October. When ice normally increases fastest.
Folks, you are missing the point. The issue is not whether or not global warming exists. The issue is that there is no way of telling whether global warming (if any) is due to humans or due to non-human phenomena. We cannot tell because we cannot set up an experiment to tests it.
For Nessie, the same analogy applies. We cannot set up an experiment, to be run under controlled conditions, to determine the monster’s existence. We can look, but if we find nothing we will not be able to decide whether that result is due to poor searching or because there is nothing to find. As I said, believe what you want to believe.
Here’s how scientists know. The same elements (i.e. same number of protons in the nucleus) with different mass numbers (arising from the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus) are called isotopes. Each carbon molecule has six protons in the nucleus, but there are many different isotopes with varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus.[10] Carbon isotopes from different sources are “lighter” (high negative value) or heavier (lower negative value). For example, carbon from ocean is the standard with a value of “0” while carbon from fossil fuels ranges from -20 to -32.[11] While atmospheric carbon has an average value of -5 to -9, it is becoming “lighter” over time as carbon from fossil fuels become more abundant in the atmosphere (Figure 1).[9,11,12]
And of course, we can create models of what things would look like given what we know about CO2 (which you seem to accept) and see how these models react given what we know about natural sources. The article goes into detail, but the fact is that we have the smoking gun - we know how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.
This is a completely different issue, though. Trying to prove a negative. Which we could do, it would be as simple as scanning the lake, unless you want to propose that this creature for which there is no convincing evidence of its existence not only exists but can hide from sonar. But we don’t have to. Barring convincing evidence of Nessie’s existence, there is no reason to believe in it.
For the compelling evidence that the warming is anthropogenic, see here:
Experiments are important in science, but the controlled experiment is not the *only * means of scientific enquiry. To give a couple of examples:
In astronomy, we know a lot about the composition and properties of stars and galaxies from spectroscopy. Spectrographic analysis of a star is not an experiment, but the underlying method has been validated by many experiments on earth, and the only assumption is that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe.
In evolutionary biology, our knowledge of the common ancestry of all life on earth. We cannot set up planetary-scale experiments to re-run evolution over billions of years, so our evidence here is not experimental. It comes principally from molecular phylogenetics (the relationships between the DNA sequences in the genomes of different species) and from the evidence that all of life shares many genes and characteristics such as basic metabolic processes.
The aphorism that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is cute, but it is complete nonsense.
Given a hypothesis, if we find no evidence when the hypothesis predicts that we should see evidence, then this is evidence that the hypothesis is wrong. Of course, our dismissal of the hypothesis is always strictly provisional, but all of scientific knowledge is provisional. The confidence with which we would dismiss the hypothesis is a function of the strength of the prediction that we should see evidence.
Plate tectonics has caused our landmass to change slowly but surely. Geologists have plenty of evidence of what the planets surface looked like in the past, and Lock Ness, the body of water, is relatively new and was slowly filled with melt water after the gouge in the earth was created by an uplift. Hard to make an argument that some prehistoric creature could make it’s way into the land locked Lock from an older body of water that was around more then 50,000 years ago.
I was a machinist’s helper at a university’s shop in Chicago. One of the researchers associated with the university came in and discussed a special project with my shop’s machinist and me. He wanted to develop a cheap, simple “biopsy harpoon” to use on his upcoming expedition to Loch Ness. He was perfectly serious and had several ideas for construction, materials, and so forth. The machinist and I just sort of looked at each other behind his back. Everything else he had asked us to work on prior to that point had been very practical and related to laboratory work.
So…we manufactured quite a few prototypes. A major problem was that we had no idea what the hide or skin of Nessie would be like. Like a whale? Dolphin? Alligator? Hippo? Plus, how was this harpoon going to be launched? By hand, like old-time whalers? By compressed air? Harpoon gun, using a blank shell? (According to the researcher, he would not be allowed to use a firearm to launch the harpoon, but a crossbow might be acceptable.)
Were any of them ever used? Don’t know. Never saw any news about him. But I still have one of the prototypes. It’s quite amusing to see people’s reactions to being told that tubular thing over there is a Nessie harpoon.
