Physicist Offers $10,000 to Anyone Who Can Disprove Global Warming

Disprove it?

It hasn't been proven yet.

How can someone disprove something that hasn't been proven????

 

Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists

The Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”


Kevin Trenberth

Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.

Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn’t. “It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data,” he explains. “It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations.”

He adds that while warming has in fact slowed on the earth’s surface, “93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean, and the ocean continues to heat, so people are confusing temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere — the weather — with long-term climate change.”

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

 

Have to laugh, your link posts this:

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists

Then go on to say some of the skeptics are real scientists.

Can you say con job?

Trenberth, Abraham and Gleick of The Daily Climate post this:

http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/09/spencer-faulty-science

The damaging impact of Roy Spencer's science

The title pretty much says it all. The “damaging impact” of someone’s science? What damage is being done? I find this whole concept of someone’s science being damaging as rather scary, and it is not Spencer’s science that I find scary. Not a proud moment for Team Trenberth, Abraham and Gleick.

 

A lifetime of crazy cultists hunting you for shattering their 'save sweet Gaia' complex is hardly worth the $10k...

 

hired by big oil to do a job, no doubt

 

LOL, yeah, the usual fallback when you don't have anything. Typical. At least you display yourself as a caricature of true religion of AGW.

 

do you think there are no such scientists?

 

Publicity stunt.

How about he gives somebody 10,000K to prove that global warming is caused by humans.

He wouldn't be paying out with that bet either.

 

"in 2007, the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank, offered $10,000 for articles undermining the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s major report."


Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, climate change deniers often draw upon the conspiracy that it’s is a fabricated theory invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Texas-based physicist is turning that notion on its head by offering $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can disprove mainstream, accepted climate science.

Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, says in his blog post that the rules are easy: there is no entry fee, participants must be over 18, and the scientific method must be employed.
“Deniers actively claim that science is on their side and there is no proof of man-made climate change,” Keating told the College Fix by email. “You would think that if it was really as easy as the deniers claim that someone, somewhere would do it.”

Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn’t real. “They are even free to find proof on the Internet and cut and paste it,” he said.

Keating is the author of the recent book “Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming,” which employs a Socratic-style discussion between three friends over email in a climate change polemic.

In his announcement of the $10,000 award, which comes just a couple months after the release of his book, Keating says that climate change deniers today are engaged in a campaign very similar to the one waged by tobacco advocates to deny a link between smoking and lung cancer in an attempt to deceive the public.

“I am certain my money is safe,” he says. “They are in the business of denial and deception, not science. But, if someone could give me a scientific proof global warming isn’t real, it would be worth the money.”

In the meantime, Keating says consumers will continue to pay for the costs of climate change. “We are already seeing increases in the cost of utilities, insurance, food and many more things due to climate change.”

The digital realm is full of well-intentioned efforts, mean-spirited accusations, and entertaining distractions surrounding the reality of climate change and what to believe, and it’s unsurprising that Keating’s challenge is not the first of its kind from either side of the debate.

In 2007, Junkscience.com, run by climate denier Steve Milloy — who dubbed himself “The Junkman” — issued a challenge offering $150,000 to anyone who could scientifically prove that humans were causing “catastrophic global warming”. By the time the contest ended in failure in early 2009, the prize had risen to $500,000. As of late last year, Milloy is director of external policy & strategy at Murray Energy Corporation, the largest privately-held coal producer in the U.S.

Milloy and Murray Energy are a good fit. Murray Energy Corp. founder Robert Murray recently said that “the earth has actually cooled over the last 17 years,” and that the EPA is “lying about so-called global warming.”

Murray Energy is now suing the EPA over its proposed new carbon emissions proposal.

Also in 2007, the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank, offered $10,000 for articles undermining the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s major report.

This month, in an oddly-timed coincidence, the global warming-denying Heartland Institute is also using $10,000 to entice content from organizations and scientists who question global warming. In this case, they are charging $10,000 to offer a chance to be featured in a Washington Times special section as part of the 9th International Conference on Climate Change, a Heartland-hosted event in Las Vegas in early July. The Koch Brothers, who deny global warming and are bankrolling a massive campaign against action and politicians supporting action at all levels of government, are key contributors to the Heartland Institute.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451810/physicist-offers-climate-denier-reward/

 

What Physicist is stupid enough to believe anyone can prove a negative? He should have learned that early on in his education....IF he really is a physicist.

But one CAN prove a positive....and cause and effect. So....why doesn't he prove that global warming actually exists and that man is causing it? Because he can't, that's why.

 

most scientists say it's not a negative

anyway, let's assume agw is a theory, do you think it's impossible to disprove theories? it isn't


Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

Then they should be easily able to PROVE it.....and they haven't. Otherwise, there would be no debate.

You know why Greenland was called "GREEN" land??? It was once lush with greenery. Now it's cold and icy and has been for years. And that was all long before man or industry came on the scene. So, how does the physicist explain that?

Weather oddities? We've always had them. Read about the "Dust Bowl" in the 30's. Hot, dry, windy......and because of federal government encouragement of massive numbers of people to plow up their lands, they greatly contributed to what happened.

I remember lots of tornadoes when I was a kid.....many more than we're having now. Hurricanes? There have always been good years....and bad years.....they have always been around. No proof they are increasing.....in fact, there haven't been as many as used to be. Floods? Yep....the town I grew up in had a huge flood in 1908 that caused my grandfather who was in the 5th grade to have to quit school and go to work because his family lost EVERYTHING. Yep......bad weather has been around forever.

All this talk about global warming and man causing it......is all about hating capitalism and hating fossil fuels....hating "Big Oil," and "Big Energy companies." Same old stuff from liberals.....and few people actually listen to it.

 

A theory is not fact. It's a theory. There once was a "theory" that the world was flat. Eventually that was disproven as it was found to be rounded.

There are also a lot of solar flares from the sun occurring too. And we're learning more about those and how they come down towards earth. So, what "warming" might they be causing? What are they doing to our atmosphere? Lots of questions......and theories there???

But to claim global warming is a man-made cause is the problem here.

 

I'd give him 10K if he could prove man made global warming exists.

 

That's not why he will not lose any money.

He will not lose any money because he is violating a basic axiom of science and asking for the impossible.

One cannot prove a negative.
One can not prove anthropogenic global warming is NOT real anymore than one can NOT prove leprechauns are real.

For such a distinguished scientist he should have known this.

The onus is him and others to prove anthropogenic warming is a significant enough threat to be alarmed about and they have failed.

 

warming is happening, despite your denials

 

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? Since we know without speculation that the above warming existed without fossil fuels being burned due to the fossils being found there, the burden of proof is on the scientists to prove that the burning fossil materials is fueling the warming. We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. If you can't absolutely prove the latest warm period it's man made, then you can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again. Sorry!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/about.html

 

I should enter, I'm still waiting for an explanation regarding what good the global warming consensus is if they can't predict the rate or amount of warming.

 

Why a measly 10,000 bucks? That's pretty much chump change these days. Afraid of something? Must be somewhat worried someone could put forth an arguement even he could not dismiss.

 

And has been since the end of the Little Ice Age.

 

Libs make such a fuss about man-made global warming and push the hoax so hard it gives the impression that more people care about than actually do.

Polls show that there are 20 other issues that matter more to the public than an irrational fear that miami is going to sink into the ocean.

 

of course most people don't get it

it's scientists that have seen the evidence, who understand what's going on

 

You mean it is scientists that created a model and predictions based on that model. As far as evidence is concerned, they keep predicting things that don't come true.

 

like the flooding in miami, warming oceans, drought in the west, heavy rains in the southeast, increased fies & etc?

 

Droughts are down, tornados are down. The sea level has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age and fires have been happening all my life. To use your logic, we are cooling because it was colder than usual last winter.