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

[flacaltenn]

1) The idiot violated Scientific Method in the set-up of the proposition.

2) There is no STANDARD DEFINITION of the Global Warming theory, because there is NO CONSENSUS ON WHAT IT IS.. OR any specific QUANITIZED projections.

3) Leftists love to chant and do street theatre.. It's what they are good at..

I'm thankful that the vast of majority of folks here have been following along and recognize this as a "cheap" act of hubris.. Rather than anything to do with a physicist asking for debate..

Chanting and street theater is about the only way to sell snake oil. If you present it for what it is and try to sell it on its merits...who the hell wants it?

I just read a pretty good article regarding the demise of climate science...talks about the fact that climate science is eager to argue with skeptics but don't bother to point out obvious and egregious errors made by the press and don't bother to admit when they have made errors or publicly admit failed predictions....or that they just don't know. As a result, public trust and more importantly, interest in the climate is waning fast. You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop hearing you. Maybe funding will fall off to the point that climate science can only afford to try and find out what drives the climate rather than waste its time on alarmism.

The #1 reason for the failure of the propaganda to ignite the public is the piss poor job that the media and the press have done in covering (or ignoring) the scientific debate. When they see CBS putting up a graphic about boiling oceans or blaming GW for the war in Syria -- they RECOGNIZE that as leftist street theatre not honest debate.

I can't remember where I read but someone was listing factors that probably outweigh the so called greenhouse effect....or might, together comprise the so called greenhouse effect...among them were the fact that the oceans retain heat overnight, the atmosphere's weight due to gravity restrict the ocean's ability to evaporate, near the surface the atmosphere has a higher heat capacity due to gravity and the resulting increased pressure, and the fact that the oceans spread heat towards the poles...there were a few more factors but I can't recall them. Till we have a handle on how energy moves through the system we aren't going to know what is driving the climate at different times...it is however a sure bet that one thing isn't driving it all the time and a wisp of a trace gas in the atmosphere is never driving it anytime.

Heard just this week that the heat the oceans ate is coming back to get us soon. This is based on little more than black magic since we know too little about how the heat goes into and comes out of storage. But that doesn't stop a good a good fiction writer from spinning a yarn.. Climate science needs to go wild.. Stop being a domesticated group on patronage. And start figuring out the hard questions..

 

[flacaltenn]

1) The idiot violated Scientific Method in the set-up of the proposition.

2) There is no STANDARD DEFINITION of the Global Warming theory, because there is NO CONSENSUS ON WHAT IT IS.. OR any specific QUANITIZED projections.

3) Leftists love to chant and do street theatre.. It's what they are good at..

I'm thankful that the vast of majority of folks here have been following along and recognize this as a "cheap" act of hubris.. Rather than anything to do with a physicist asking for debate..

Yep.....tens of thousands of scientists talk about this all the time.......this violation of the scientific method. To climate scientists, statistical error doesn't exist!! How fucking bogus?

GWarming doesn't even make it to the level of a theory..

In the case of Global Warming, EVEN THE HYPOTHESES tested and STATEMENTS of RESULTS defy the scientific method because there are no SPECIFIC projections for the warming or climate disruption. And hardly any that match empirical observations or fit the claims. "could be's", mights and maybe's are OPINIONS, not falsifiable statements. A theory that is short of falsifiable statements is a BELIEF -- not a theory to be disproven..

 

[westwall]

Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.

Trivial to do. I can easily prove there are no elephants in my living room. Only the logically deficient -- that is, nearly every denier -- say you can't prove a negative.

It is on those who assert that need to provide proof of claim.

Done and done, over and over. That's why the burden of proof is on you now, just as it's on anyone who would want to deny gravity or the round earth theory. So, do it, and collect your easy cash.

Dude, you can't even figure out if you're a avionics tech or a non existent "nuclear watch officer", I doubt you could prove there are elephants in Burma, much less Africa.

 

[mamooth]

Deniers, consider Westwall to be an object lesson. If you follow him down the path of crazy obsession, you'll end up just like him. And I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Deniers, consider Westwall to be an object lesson. If you follow him down the path of crazy obsession, you'll end up just like him. And I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.

What is the AGW Theory anyway?

 

[jc456]

The hypothesis has failed...how much more proof does he need? Hot spot in the troposphere was supposed to be the human fingerprint on the smoking gun...where is it?

Just sent old Ari a request to first prove that 120PPM increase of CO2 drives climate, and if he can't he can pay me.

 

[jc456]

Deniers, consider Westwall to be an object lesson. If you follow him down the path of crazy obsession, you'll end up just like him. And I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.

What is the AGW Theory anyway?

Frank, go to his page on the link and request that he first prove that120 PPM increase of CO2 drives climate or affects ph in the oceans and if he can't provide that proof, then he owes you 10 grand.

 

[jc456]

Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.

Trivial to do. I can easily prove there are no elephants in my living room. Only the logically deficient -- that is, nearly every denier -- say you can't prove a negative.

Prove bigfoot doesn't exist.

It is on those who assert that need to provide proof of claim.

Done and done, over and over. That's why the burden of proof is on you now, just as it's on anyone who would want to deny gravity or the round earth theory. So, do it, and collect your easy cash.

Nope. The burden of proof is always on those making the claim. You claim to understand science, but you just posted two claims that demonstrate you don't know the first thing about it.

no, no, ask him to prove that CO2 drives climate and if he can't you've proved him wrong. Go ask him.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Look at all the experts and scientists lining up to get their $10K.

Oh wait ... There's nobody.

But, not surprisingly, there are plenty ignorant RWs making excuses.

 

[jc456]

Look at all the experts and scientists lining up to get their $10K.

Oh wait ... There's nobody.

But, not surprisingly, there are plenty ignorant RWs making excuses.

I sent my request for 10 grand in.

 

[Kosh]

Notice how the far left/AGW Cult want someone to prove a negative..

Once these people grow up then maybe we can move forward in politics and actual start to practice science again.

 

[Politico]

10k lol.

 

[westwall]

Look at all the experts and scientists lining up to get their $10K.

Oh wait ... There's nobody.

But, not surprisingly, there are plenty ignorant RWs making excuses.

When it comes to ignorance you lead the way nuddly. HE has to PROVE his theory. That's how the null hypothesis works. He hasn't been able to show one shred of empirical data to support it so he's trying to rewrite the scientific method to cover his ass and you're so ignorant you don't understand.

 

[Kosh]

I have yet seen the AGW cult prove their religion through actual science.

Still not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

If that hack James Hansen can not produce this, I full expect that the AGW cult members can not either.

 

[mamooth]

Deniers.

 

[SSDD]

Deniers, consider Westwall to be an object lesson. If you follow him down the path of crazy obsession, you'll end up just like him. And I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone.

What is the AGW Theory anyway?

If you do an informal survey, there are about a dozen of them. Warmers and luke warmers seem to subscribe to quite a few....none of which seem to jibe with the IPCC version.

 

[Crick]

Oh? So you're aware there's an IPCC version? Then what, exactly, are you babbling about?

 

[Kosh]

This person should not be allowed to be called a scientist much less comment on science.

 

[flacaltenn]

He should have offered $10K for anyone who could exactly define the Global Warming theory and it's "scientific resolution".. It doesn't exist.. NOT EVEN in the sum total of IPCC reports..

What is the issue to be explored?
What is the Hypothesis?
What are the statements that RESOLVE that hypothesis.
Show your numbers and work...

AND THEN offer another reward for a better hypothesis with a better explanation of the original stated
problem..

He'd need to pay me more than $10K tho for that. That's less than my normal "general" consulting rate.

 

[Kosh]

He should have offered $10K for anyone who could exactly define the Global Warming theory and it's "scientific resolution".. It doesn't exist.. NOT EVEN in the sum total of IPCC reports..

What is the issue to be explored?
What is the Hypothesis?
What are the statements that RESOLVE that hypothesis.
Show your numbers and work...

AND THEN offer another reward for a better hypothesis with a better explanation of the original stated
problem..

He'd need to pay me more than $10K tho for that. That's less than my normal "general" consulting rate.

James Hansen commands $20,000 per half hour of speaking/consulting.