OFFER: $30,000 if You Can Scientifically Disprove Anthropogenic Climate Change

[presence]

Make it $50,000 (The Young Turks have upped the ante) see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xwkrMQYlI



You have until July 31, 2014 to submit your evidence.



http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...og-page_1.html

I have heard global warming skeptics make all sorts of statements about how the science doesn't support claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the skeptics to prove their claims. And, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I am announcing the start of the $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. The rules are easy:

1. I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;

2. There is no entry fee;

3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;

4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;

5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.

That's it! I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn't you like to have a spare $30,000? After all, the skeptics all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn't even have to be original. If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $30,000 is yours!

This is no joke. If someone can provide a proof that I can't refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a check.

But, I am sure I will never have to because it can't be proven. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise.

Any takers?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/physicis...limate-change/

Of course, this means that Keating will need to be convinced by the evidence -- the competition will be won when someone presents evidence that he cannot refute -- and he is confident that the prize will remain untouched.

1.I will [also] award $1,000 of my own money to anyone that can show there is valid scientific evidence indicating man made global warming is not real. It doesn't have to prove man made global warming is not real, it just needs to be valid scientific evidence against it;

[thoughtomator]

So, they're tripling down on advertising their ignorance of the logical fallacy of proving a negative?

They couldn't offer better evidence that they haven't a clue when it comes to actual science.

[Acala]

So, they're tripling down on advertising their ignorance of the logical fallacy of proving a negative?

They couldn't offer better evidence that they haven't a clue when it comes to actual science.

Exactly. I will give anyone $1 million who can prove that Martians are not watching us from outer space. Can't do it? Then I guess they are.

[CaptUSA]

Generally, the burden of proof should be on the one making an assertion; not the one denying it.

But, for the sake of the argument... I will give $10,000 to anyone who can prove to me, with irrefutable scientific evidence, that this Keating guy is not a moron. Good luck.

[Ronin Truth]

I think our greenhouse gas thread makes a pretty good case against human caused climate change AKA global warming.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Man-s-CO2-is-1-!!!

[brandon]

I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring

These people are f-ing morons They are the worst of the worst. Psuedo intellectual dipshits who don't even understand the things their lives revolve around.

If they had even the slighted clue, they would know these two facts:

1) The scientific method is entirely incapable of ever proving anything. The output of the scientific method is only evidence supporting or refuting a hyopthesis - it's never proof. Proof doesn't exist in science
2) You can't prove a negative. I'd offer them a billion dollars to prove that ghosts don't exist. They can't do it.

[dannno]

Isn't it enough to be able to tear apart the case made for man made global warming? That's already been done, many many times.

[torchbearer]

how does one prove a negative?

[CPUd]

He posts some clarification:

You didn't read the instructions clearly. The challenge is not to disprove man made global warming, the challenge is that people claim that man made global warming is not real and they can prove. I am just giving them the opportunity to do so. If they are making that statement, that means the evidence is already there.

I specifically require the scientific method to preclude 'God said so' arguments and others that are similar. I heard a guy yesterday claim that global warming is not real because it is all just a big world government conspiracy. I am sure he thinks he has proved it is not real, but that is not scientific.

He wants someone to first make the claim, then prove it.

[Ronin Truth]

He posts some clarification:



He wants someone to first make the claim, then prove it.

And whatever they say, he'll just say "That's no proof." Same old boring crap. <YAWN>

[CPUd]

And whatever they say, he'll just say "That's no proof." Same old boring crap. <YAWN>

He would surely say that if someone fails to prove their claim.

[PaulConventionWV]

These contests are always rigged. They always come up with some bogus explanation of why the contestant is wrong and then just exit the debate entirely.

Besides, the burden of proof is on those who say that climate change IS occurring. You can't prove a negative.

[phill4paul]

These contests are always rigged. They always come up with some bogus explanation of why the contestant is wrong and then just exit the debate entirely.

And this right here...

5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.

is why it could never go to court.

[PaulConventionWV]

So, they're tripling down on advertising their ignorance of the logical fallacy of proving a negative?

They couldn't offer better evidence that they haven't a clue when it comes to actual science.

Exactly.

This is so outrageously ridiculous. You can't come up with a unified "proof" that something is not occurring because there are always a million other factors that make it a mere possibility. That's why nobody will collect the prize: because scientifically proving a negative is logically impossible. I can't believe someone who even has that amount of money doesn't know this.

[PaulConventionWV]

He posts some clarification:



He wants someone to first make the claim, then prove it.

Beyond ridiculous. Perhaps, if he was aware of the logical impossibility of proving a negative, he could have just told them that instead of offering them money to do exactly that?

[juleswin]

This makes me think, I wonder if one can design this as a carnival game where contestants will pay money trying to guess the answer, winner takes $1 zillion dollars prize. But seriously, can you present NASA temperature records showing that global temperatures have leveled off in last decade plus and if he tells you that the oceans absorbed all the temperature then you ask him to prove it or else pay up.

[CPUd]

He's not asking people to prove a negative. Whoever wrote that article came up with the title.

You could make a claim like: "all climate patterns are natural", define 'climate patterns' and 'natural' so there is no ambiguity, and try to prove that. But he would only have to find 1 instance where the statement is false to invalidate your proof.

There are other ways to approach it, if you can work with things that are vacuously true.

Or you could couch it in a way where "there is at least 1 instance where a climate pattern is not natural" would be a null hypothesis.

[acptulsa]

These people are f-ing morons They are the worst of the worst. Psuedo intellectual dipshits who don't even understand the things their lives revolve around.

If they had even the slighted clue, they would know these two facts:

1) The scientific method is entirely incapable of ever proving anything. The output of the scientific method is only evidence supporting or refuting a hyopthesis - it's never proof. Proof doesn't exist in science
2) You can't prove a negative. I'd offer them a billion dollars to prove that ghosts don't exist. They can't do it.

brandon brandon brandon. You've been here longer than I have yet I haven't taught you a damned thing. They aren't f'ng morons, they're worse. They're evil propagandists. They're not offering forty grand to prove a negative, they're pretending to so f'ng idiots will look at it and say, 'Surely if it could be done someone would do it for that, so their foolish claims must be right.' So, they wow the idiots and it doesn't cost them a dime. All they have to come up with is 'what ifs' and it looks like they're doing something.

Which is pseudo science, sure. What propaganda isn't? But if you try to argue that, instead of merely trying to disprove the negative like they said, your entry will be redacted.

They aren't being idiots, or at least they're being canny idiots. Who but an idiot would even try to disprove a negative? If only idiots try, then how does that reflect on 'climate change deniers' in general? They're getting some attention, they're weeding everyone with a brain out of the other side of their 'debate', and their forty grand is perfectly safe.

My only question is why didn't they make it forty million?

[Ronin Truth]

He would surely say that if someone fails to prove their claim.

And whatever they say, he'll just say "That's no proof either." Same old boring crap. <YAWN> Round and round it goes ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[Ronin Truth]

Put the $50K in a certified escrow account and then we'll talk.

[acptulsa]

Put the $50K in a certified escrow account and then we'll talk.

Oh, and while you're at it, put someone who doesn't currently own the money in charge of framing the question and judging the arguments. You know, the way real contests are run.

[Ronin Truth]

Oh, and while you're at it, put someone who doesn't currently own the money in charge of framing the question and judging the arguments. You know, the way real contests are run.

And it might also be helpful to hear what specific kind of scientific proof would be expected, required and accepted.

[CPUd]

The comment section in the link in the OP is where he is accepting submissions. So far, over 25 submissions, here is a typical one:

Jonathan Gal July 2, 2014 at 10:05 PM

On my blog, I wrote a piece entitled, "Flaws In The Global Warming Hypothesis." There is a link to it, below, and I will summarize here the key points of the article, which refutes the hypothesis of the global warming hypothesis ...

1. The Heat Capacity of CO2 (ie its ability to absorb heat) is actually lower than the Heat Capacity of Air. So, as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat actually decreases. This will create the opposite effect of what the alarmists suggest. This will cool the earth.

2. The Thermal Conductivity of CO2 is lower than the Thermal Conductivity of Air, which means that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes more reflective of heat. This will increase the reflectivity of the atmosphere for heat travelling in both directions. Heat attempting to leave the earth will be reflected back towards the earth, which will create a warming effect. However, the heat coming from the sun and trying to enter the atmosphere will also be reflected away from the earth and back out into outer space, which will have a cooling impact. So, the change in reflectivity of the atmosphere, from rising CO2 levels, has two competing impacts on the temperature of the earth. One is a cooling impact. The other is a warming impact. These two impacts will cancel each other out, creating zero net impact on the temperature of the earth.

3. The ice core data are highly unreliable, due to questions about diffusion of CO2 through the ice cores, as well as alternative explanations for the observed data, which have not been adequately addressed.

Please follow the link below for the complete article that I wrote on this matter.

http://galationpress.blogspot.com/20...cience-or.html

...

Christopher Keating July 3, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Jonathan Gal: Your submission has been accepted and I will post it with my response as quickly as I can. It is called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Heat Capacity" Watch for it but understand there are over 25 submissions ahead of you. Please be patient.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Another gimmick for advertising. Or just another gimmick that's be done a zillion times. Or whatever. Reminds of the latest fad where the high school nerd asks and gets a date with the cheerleader from a girly magazine.

[buenijo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHwhb8C8to

Just one of countless perspectives that challenge the alarmist global warming/climate change dogma.

[buenijo]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/guy-mcp...nction/5386102

Don't bother - we'll all be dead in 20 years anyway.

[PRB]

And it might also be helpful to hear what specific kind of scientific proof would be expected, required and accepted.

for starters

1. the CO2 explanation fails to explain something
2. A better explanation and cause is available
3. there is positive evidence for the alternative explanation, and we can backtrack, retrospectively 'predict' in blind temperatures in the past
4. again the alternative explanation should, at minimum, coherently explain all observed temperatures, anomolies, and predictions, since CO2 is currently the best explanation

[PRB]

2) You can't prove a negative. I'd offer them a billion dollars to prove that ghosts don't exist. They can't do it.

If you can't prove the negative, you ought not CLAIM the negative. People who claim AGW is a hoax are making the positive claim that there is positive evidence it's an intentional hoax, therefore can and should prove it.

So ,it's one thing to say you don't buy it, but calling it a fraud or disproven theory? That requires evidence.

[buenijo]

PRB, I have been disgusted by some arguments you've made elsewhere. However, I am willing to give you benefit of doubt. Perhaps I misjudged your intentions.

It may be that I and others are not aware of the work done since Al Gore poisoned the well with his 2006 presentation (let's be honest - that work of his was full of holes). Other factors also have contributed to doubt including the source for the carbon credit trading scheme (a la Enron) and the strange affinity that socialists/marxists have with the AGW concept (often people with zero proficiency in science). I concede that there may be a lot of information and arguments made available since that time to support the AGW premise. It's difficult for most of us to wade through the misinformation and lies.

Rather than requesting others to "prove" AGW to be false, perhaps you could provide specifics on how the AGW position is "incontrovertible" as so many claim. I admit to being skeptical. My choice of words shows this. However, this is a genuine inquiry. If you have knowledge that we do not, then you should take on the role of teacher. Educate us. Please do not merely refer abstractly to the work of others. You should outline their work as best you can to make the case. I can't anticipate the reaction from others, but I promise to take it in without undue criticism.

NOTE: I suggest your starting a new thread for this purpose.

[newbitech]

Here is the climate change for the last 10 years in North/South America. I see climate changing, I don't see people.




here is more climate change on a different place for the last 3 years. I see climate changing, I don't see people.