If you can prove Global Warming is Man Made - Why haven't you taken the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge?

Question

It's an easy 10 grand. I mean, come on - you're so freakin' sure it's man made, submit the evidence and shut the skeptics up!

Should be a no-brainer, right?

http://www.junkscience.com/

Oops...my mistake. $100,000.00 is the prize.

And "completely irrelevant" isn't an answer to the question. It's a dismissive statement that's usually used by those LOSING an argument.

So, what's with the "cooling trend" since 1998, all you AGW lemmings?

Oh yeah....wait until 2009 - boy it's gonna get hot AFTER that (ignore the fact that my GRANT renewal comes up in 2008, and if I don't alarm somebody enough, they won't give me the money to keep harping on this!)

Governments are investing TENS of BILLIONS of dollars a year in Global Warming Research BECAUSE the scientists say it's getting warmer because of man. The Oil Companies invested a total of 8 MILLION dollars in "contrarian" research.

Yet, there's no hue and cry that AGW Advocates are "paid shills of the IPCC" - which only exists if AGW is "real."

Answer 1

They can't prove it....and they hate it. It's kind of amusing watching and listening to them make one dire prediction after another, isn't it?

Answer 2

What a bogus "challenge". Milloy and JunkScience (more about them later) will just say "no you haven't proven it". Here's the challenge:

The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

UGWC Hypothesis 1
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

Hell, the first hypothesis is a no-brainer. The definition of a greenhouse gas is that it causes global warming! If it weren't for greenhouse gases our planet would be a freezing hellscape!!

The catch is that the second is absolutely impossible to prove. Virtually every climate scientist agrees that it's false (it's obvious that higher temperatures will cause terrible consequences), but nobody can "prove" it. James Hansen (possibly the foremost climate scientist in the world) recently noted that

"When temperatures increased to 2-3 degrees above today’s level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59 centimetres but by 25 metres. The ice responded immediately to changes in temperature."

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/03/a-sudden-change-of-state/#more-1072

Does that "prove" negative consequences of global warming? No, but it's pretty goddamn strong evidence.

As for Milloy and JunkScience, they started out being funded by Phillip Morris tobacco company to depict peer-reviewed scientific papers which found a connection between secondhand smoke and lung cancer as "junk science" and corporate-funded "research" finding no link as "sound science". Now Exxon Mobile pays the site to do the same for global warming and human greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 3

Because the "prize" is rigged so that it can't be won.

In order to win, you have to prove two things, one of which is easy -- global warming is caused by us -- and one of which is impossible. The impossible one is a "scientifically valid" prediction of future economic activity. If that were possible, we'd all be millionaires.

If non-scientist lawyer lobbyist Steven Milloy, who runs junkscience.com, were intellectually honest -- which he isn't -- he would do two things. (A) Split the prize into two separate prizes of $50,000 each, one for each proposition, and (B) appoint an independent board of judges to decide if the prizes have been won.

That's the way honest prizes are awarded. That's the way the Orteig Prize, won by Lindbergh, was awarded, and the X-prize, won by Rutan, was awarded too. Milloy isn't fit to shine their shoes. He's nothing but a political hack.

Answer 4

The second hypothesis presented in the Challenge specifically mentions 2100 as a cut-off date for evaluating the cost/benefit analysis for reducing CO2 emissions. The thing is, that under the worst-case scenarios with positive feedback of natural CO2, the maximum damage may occur in 2600 or 3100. In other words, it is entirely possible that if we go on burning fossil fuels, we'll be fine, our children will be fine, their children will be fine...but our great-great-great grandchildren will die. Does junkscience.com consider that an acceptable outcome?


It's like this:

denier: Is that bridge going to fall down?

engineer: We've inspected it, and in our opinion it is dangerous and needs repair.

denier: But can you prove that it will fall down within 10 years?

engineer: It's possible it might, and if it does it could kill a lot of people.

denier: Yes, but can you prove it?

engineer: Well, you know these things are uncertain, but our inspection shows serious structural flaws, and our models indicate that they may be serious.

denier: Computer models are no good. Unless you can prove to me that the bridge is going to fall, we're not willing to spend a penny on maintenence. The taxpayers need that bridge, and they don't want to pay for it.

Except in this case, we're betting the whole Earth.

Answer 5

From the contest rules:
"JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final."

Why would anyone bother? The entire idea behind this contest is that no winner will be chosen, which is supposed to imply that, despite their best efforts, GW theory proponents are unable to "prove" it. The article fails to mention (or doesn't know, which is quite likely) that one does not "prove" a scientific theory; one simply demonstrates that it is better than all the other =competing= scientific theories. There is no doubt whatsoever that global warming theory does this.

I would liken this to the famous contest by the former "Dr. Dino", Kent Hovind. Who offered a large cash prize to any biologist who could prove, to Hovind's satisfaction, that evolution was completely factual. Obviously no one ever accepted the prize because it demanded something that, by the principals of science, wasn't possible. Hovind presented this as proof positive that evolutionary theory was false.

Answer 6

Actually, there's a long standing prixe for proving that it isn't man made. I believe it was 10k. So why don't You prove that it isn't real instead of boring us with this useless stuff. Bring some evidence, AGW skeptics, for once.

Answer 7

Suppose the junkscience challenge is rigged?

A: DO IT ANYWAY!

If you give a coherent argument that PROVES man made global warming and junkscience doesn't give you the $100,000, you can still show your proof to the world so that all can see it as un-debatable evidence of man made global warming and make junkscience look bad. Show junkscience for who they really are!

Why not take this opportunity?

Answer 8

Do better than that. Make it rain just once and I'll believe that global warming is man made.

Answer 9

It is a no-brainer in the scientific community.

There is abundant proof:

The data proves global warming is real and mostly man made.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

So the vast majority of scientists agree that it's real and mostly caused by us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

But the junkscience guy is a shill for industry. Like the deniers here, no proof will be enough to win his prize.

It's a silly publicity stunt by a former lobbyist. Doesn't change the science.

Answer 10

It's no surprise that Alarmists claim to have the "no-brainer" solution...I mean, for what other type of solution are they qualified?

I doubt that there will be any takers. Why would they settle for a one time payout when they are making much more than that annually and can stretch that out for at least 50 years? Would you take $100,000 to get rid of your cushy job when you are not qualified for anything else as lucrative?

Answer 11

We should listen to Bob. We know what causes "man made global warming" and we know that reducing green house gases will bring the temp of the climate back to "normal" levels.

There's no need for any more research into "global warming". It's time to spend those research dollars into other important causes!