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

[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.

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

EXACTLY !! He wants to hire cheap labor, he should go troll the Home Depot parking lot..

 

[Crick]

Wimps.

 

[TheJedi]

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.

You are not very bright, are you?

I posted this here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/359836-climate-change-resources.html

Start here and educate yourself. If you are not willing to put in the time to actually understand the fucking science, your opinion does not matter one iota. Republican talking points are not science.

From Jake Hansen's Wiki: James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A year later, Hansen joined with Rahmstorf and colleagues comparing climate projections with observations. The comparison is done from 1990 through January 2007 against physics-based models that are independent from the observations after 1990. They show that the climate system may be responding faster than the models indicate. Rahmstorf and coauthors show concern that sea levels are rising at the high range of the IPCC projections, and that it is due to thermal expansion and not from melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.[42]

Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[43] However, in 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[44] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming is occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it

 

[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.

You are not very bright, are you?

I posted this here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/359836-climate-change-resources.html

Start here and educate yourself. If you are not willing to put in the time to actually understand the fucking science, your opinion does not matter one iota. Republican talking points are not science.

From Jake Hansen's Wiki: James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A year later, Hansen joined with Rahmstorf and colleagues comparing climate projections with observations. The comparison is done from 1990 through January 2007 against physics-based models that are independent from the observations after 1990. They show that the climate system may be responding faster than the models indicate. Rahmstorf and coauthors show concern that sea levels are rising at the high range of the IPCC projections, and that it is due to thermal expansion and not from melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.[42]

Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[43] However, in 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[44] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming is occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it

Hansen is an AGW hack! He lets his belief over ride any science and does not have the source code to prove that CO2 drives climate.

He has his belief system based in neo-Nazi environmentalism.

Hansen is a Hack and I have told him so.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You are not very bright, are you?

I posted this here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/359836-climate-change-resources.html

Start here and educate yourself. If you are not willing to put in the time to actually understand the fucking science, your opinion does not matter one iota. Republican talking points are not science.

From Jake Hansen's Wiki: James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A year later, Hansen joined with Rahmstorf and colleagues comparing climate projections with observations. The comparison is done from 1990 through January 2007 against physics-based models that are independent from the observations after 1990. They show that the climate system may be responding faster than the models indicate. Rahmstorf and coauthors show concern that sea levels are rising at the high range of the IPCC projections, and that it is due to thermal expansion and not from melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.[42]

Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[43] However, in 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[44] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming is occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it

If you think this little historical anecdote ended the dissent, you've haven't read much of the story.. That little disagreement was resolved and now BOTH the sat and ground data show that the models are performing miserably.. Largely because the effects of CO2 and exaggerated "accelerations" predicted have failed to track the catastrophic predictions of the 80s and 90s..

MANY of the natural contributions to Climate change have been PURPOSELY underestimated and the "magic multipliers" in your "settled science" are looking more fictitious as time goes on.. What's the temperature anomaly gonna be in 2050???

 

[Kosh]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

 

[Crick]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.

Complete nonsense. The point is widely discussed.

When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.

If you were going to get on someone's case for being deceptive, you ought to jump on wherever you got that bit of deviousness. Increasing temperatures are caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases. The proportion of the INCREASE in greenhouse gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution attributable to human activity is very close to 100%.

Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

More bullshit, I'm afraid. That water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas has been known since the mid-1800s when the theory of greenhouse warming was first proposed. There is no "growing number of scientists" adapting this view. It is the universal view of everyone with sufficient knowledge on the topic to avoid being taken in by crap like this.

 

[Lumpy 1]

If all liberals/Democrats gave up their vehicles, home heating and air conditioning, didn't ride planes, trains and buses, bought only natural products, didn't consume electricity, bought no industrial products, lived in holes in the ground etc. , think how much better the environment would be.

They could lead by example and show they actually lived by their supposed convictions ... who knows, it might catch on


Btw if Democrats control 66.6 % of the federal elected power much longer, we might all be living like that too soon...sheesh

 

[Kosh]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.

Complete nonsense. The point is widely discussed.

When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.

If you were going to get on someone's case for being deceptive, you ought to jump on wherever you got that bit of deviousness. Increasing temperatures are caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases. The proportion of the INCREASE in greenhouse gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution attributable to human activity is very close to 100%.

Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

More bullshit, I'm afraid. That water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas has been known since the mid-1800s when the theory of greenhouse warming was first proposed. There is no "growing number of scientists" adapting this view. It is the universal view of everyone with sufficient knowledge on the topic to avoid being taken in by crap like this.

See the AGW cult has only their faith in their religion and zero science to backup their comments. It is only their faith in their religion and the faith n the scribes that controls the bulk of the grants that gives their religious hold over the science community.

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

 

[jc456]

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.

You are not very bright, are you?

I posted this here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/359836-climate-change-resources.html

Start here and educate yourself. If you are not willing to put in the time to actually understand the fucking science, your opinion does not matter one iota. Republican talking points are not science.

From Jake Hansen's Wiki: James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A year later, Hansen joined with Rahmstorf and colleagues comparing climate projections with observations. The comparison is done from 1990 through January 2007 against physics-based models that are independent from the observations after 1990. They show that the climate system may be responding faster than the models indicate. Rahmstorf and coauthors show concern that sea levels are rising at the high range of the IPCC projections, and that it is due to thermal expansion and not from melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.[42]

Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[43] However, in 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[44] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming is occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it

LOL, see, we're all waiting for the evidence that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. None of which any of you have. You can post all the links in the world, but we're looking for that one. You don't have one right?

 

[jc456]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.

When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.

[
Increasing temperatures are caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases. The proportion of the INCREASE in greenhouse gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution attributable to human activity is very close to 100%.

Dude, prove it.

 

[indiajo]

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.
.

No, you can't and you will never be able to do so. As you will never be able to proof that there is no black swan or no unicorn. In your living room or elsewhere.
It's the principle of falsification. Read Popper.
As long as you are not in a position to put scientific sound arguments you better be careful talking about logical deficiency.

 

[Mertex]

If all liberals/Democrats gave up their vehicles, home heating and air conditioning, didn't ride planes, trains and buses, bought only natural products, didn't consume electricity, bought no industrial products, lived in holes in the ground etc. , think how much better the environment would be.

They could lead by example and show they actually lived by their supposed convictions ... who knows, it might catch on


Btw if Democrats control 66.6 % of the federal elected power much longer, we might all be living like that too soon...sheesh

Yeah right.....because Bush (Conservative) didn't waste billions on 2 stupid wars, and conservatives like Ted Cruz don't waste any of our tax money chasing frivolous rabbits.

Your Kool-Aid is working really good.

 

[jc456]

If all liberals/Democrats gave up their vehicles, home heating and air conditioning, didn't ride planes, trains and buses, bought only natural products, didn't consume electricity, bought no industrial products, lived in holes in the ground etc. , think how much better the environment would be.

They could lead by example and show they actually lived by their supposed convictions ... who knows, it might catch on


Btw if Democrats control 66.6 % of the federal elected power much longer, we might all be living like that too soon...sheesh

Yeah right.....because Bush (Conservative) didn't waste billions on 2 stupid wars, and conservatives like Ted Cruz don't waste any of our tax money chasing frivolous rabbits.

Your Kool-Aid is working really good.

way to stay on topic! LOL, that's all you got?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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.

The climate changes. My backyard was once under a mile of ice.

When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming,

97%? If you mean 75/77, you should say so.

 

[Mertex]

Because our conservatives in Congress are so scientific.......

 

[jc456]

Because our conservatives in Congress are so scientific.......

Still nothing!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because our conservatives in Congress are so scientific.......

Obama stopped the rise of the oceans, just by winning the Dem nomination.

 

[Lumpy 1]

If all liberals/Democrats gave up their vehicles, home heating and air conditioning, didn't ride planes, trains and buses, bought only natural products, didn't consume electricity, bought no industrial products, lived in holes in the ground etc. , think how much better the environment would be.

They could lead by example and show they actually lived by their supposed convictions ... who knows, it might catch on


Btw if Democrats control 66.6 % of the federal elected power much longer, we might all be living like that too soon...sheesh

Yeah right.....because Bush (Conservative) didn't waste billions on 2 stupid wars, and conservatives like Ted Cruz don't waste any of our tax money chasing frivolous rabbits.

Your Kool-Aid is working really good.

I guess you have forgotten that Democrats voted, supported and funded for these wars, even after they found a way to use our soldiers as fodder to win elections.

Have you checked the national debt and federal unfunded liabilities since Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

btw Obamacare has been a disaster if you haven't noticed and has wasted far more of the taxpayers money, gads and this is only the beginning

thanks for the laugh, notice that I'm capable of saying thanks where as you freeload threads and can't.

 

[Kosh]

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.

Complete nonsense. The point is widely discussed.

When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.

If you were going to get on someone's case for being deceptive, you ought to jump on wherever you got that bit of deviousness. Increasing temperatures are caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases. The proportion of the INCREASE in greenhouse gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution attributable to human activity is very close to 100%.

Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

More bullshit, I'm afraid. That water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas has been known since the mid-1800s when the theory of greenhouse warming was first proposed. There is no "growing number of scientists" adapting this view. It is the universal view of everyone with sufficient knowledge on the topic to avoid being taken in by crap like this.

So I get AGW scripture and zero science to back up the claims of the AGW cult members.