Physicist offers $10,000 to anyone who can disprove "man-made global climate change"

Ten thousand dollars is such a wimpy purse. You could publish your proof in a book and make untold millions.

Speaking about bets in the millions, did Obama ever collect the $5 million that Trump offered him just to release his records?

He wants people to prove a negative? How about he offers it to any that can prove it's real? No payout there! Totally safe gamble.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
He wants people to prove a negative? How about he offers it to any that can prove it's real? No payout there! Totally safe gamble.

Isn't that the same base-line requirement that the 'deniers' are asking for?

originally posted by: tvtexan
a reply to: grey580

That's like trying to prove that the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus aren't real.

Exactly.

He'd have been better off offering the money to anyone who could prove it is actually man made and not just another of the regular and perfectly natural (although not always welcome of course) cycles this planet, probably all planets go through.

The Earth is not a static place, never has been.

i bet the space marine knows!

and if by any chance someone wins the bet, will anyone be told?

10g's is nothing, as charles pointed out.

a reply to: yeahright

I take it you won't be signing up to take the man's money?

In all fairness, it does look bad. Creationists do the exact same thing all the time. The only difference is that this guy's opinion is backed up by science. It's hard to see beyond what look like mere ad hoc rationalizations, but when there is data backing it up it's extremely hard to argue with.

Doesnt #5 make the whole exercise pointless?

From what I've seen from groups either in defense of or in attack of global warming both sides are just children shouting "nuh uh" at each other while politicians look for opportunities to exploit and businessmen look for opportunities to profit.

a reply to: grey580

Wow.

I fully expect the winner to be one of our own. I also expect a big party after the payout.



F&S&

originally posted by: Lipton

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
He wants people to prove a negative? How about he offers it to any that can prove it's real? No payout there! Totally safe gamble.

Isn't that the same base-line requirement that the 'deniers' are asking for?

The point is that you can show evidence for something that is real, but proving a negative isn't considered possible. The lack of any real evidence, and all the falsified evidence, ought to be enough, but it's clear that isn't the case.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The point is that you can show evidence for something that is real, but proving a negative isn't considered possible.

Not true. By demonstrating a primary cause other than anthropogenic CO2 for the current warming trend, human activity as the cause would be disproved.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

remember they just concluded that the Antarctica Ice shelf melt was do to geothermal volcanic activity and not made made global warming.

WOW that is news to me. Do you have a link to a reliable source? I thought it was just for the Thwaites Glacier but are you saying it is for all of Antartica?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The point is that you can show evidence for something that is real, but proving a negative isn't considered possible.

Not true. By demonstrating a primary cause other than anthropogenic CO2 for the current warming trend, human activity as the cause would be disproved.

Maybe proving there is any real "warming trend" other than in urban areas, where it's attributed to all the building, would be a better place to start. The simple truth is there isn't much variation over the last century.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
You just changed your position. You said that it cannot be proven that warming is not anthropogenic (proving a negative). But the simple truth is, you're wrong.
data.giss.nasa.gov...

As far as I can tell, there isn't a lot of building going on in polar regions. Or the middle of the ocean.

a reply to: Phage

Dear Phage,

As you've learned, I'm a real novice in the area of global warming. I'd like to ask a couple of questions because I really don't know the answers.

I understood that greenhouse gasses are far and away the major contributor to global warming. I don't know, maybe 80-90%?

I also read somewhere that water vapor was by far the largest proportion of greenhouse gasses, in volume and total effect.

If those are both correct, what's the big deal with CO2?

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: Phage

I said you can't prove real warming. I stand by that position. There are trends in climate, which are normal. There is no man-made "global warming", however.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phage

I said you can't prove real warming. I stand by that position. There are trends in climate, which are normal. There is no man-made "global warming", however.

What makes you so sure of your statement 'there is no man-made global warming, however', where does the certainty in which you make this statement come from?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Just glancing through the thread and saw your response to LadyGreenEyes.

Is this a question of who has the burden of proof? I mean, which side is responsible for proving its position? I would think that, since man-made global warming is a relatively new idea and asking for significant changes to our society, the believers in AGW would have to show that global warming exists, it's significant, that it's primarily caused by man, and that it has to be averted somehow.

I hope I'll be forgiven for putting words in LadyGreenEyes mouth, but it seems as though she's saying, "If after all this time you can't show AGW to exist, and almost every computer model describing it has failed to predict global temperatures, I'm not going to accept that it exists. It hasn't been proven, therefore I reject it's existence."

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Ok I personally have no hardcore beliefs in this debate. My personal stance is 'forget about global warming', cut back on pollution anyway. The rates and levels of waste production and pollution are not good, and I dont know if they are neutral. So I think regardless of if its 'global warming', or massive amounts of smog, or holes in ozone layer, or garbage islands, or land fills, or burying thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste, how about we attempt to cut back a little on the 'messiness' in regards to our exponential industrialization. I dont think someone can rationally say that the way we treat the planet and eco system is 'smart'. Modern men are children, and they are making a mess of their room, mommies gonna get angry and clean it for them.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Dear ImaFungi,

I completely support you, no problems here at all. Here's a half baked thought, maybe you can develop it if it seems worthwhile.

Pollution is a global problem, air, water, and land. Shouldn't we be able to determine with satellites or reconnaissance planes where the worst problem spots are?

Then the UN sends in clean-up teams, partially funded by the involved country. They then hit Big Dump #2 and keep working down the list.

I'm not too excited about making North America spotless, if the rest of the world is burning their garbage or dumping it in the oceans.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Yes I am for all countries who pollute on massive scales and waste and damage the environment and eco systems to cut back or slow down and/or think about thinking about thinking about thinking. A lot of, yes smaller countries, modern nations already have many 'green energy initiatives'. Im not all for doing these sorts of things through government, or having obama make these decisions regarding green energy that makes everyone whine and holler. But to withhold the shortsidedness of the status quo for a moment, it is not that difficult to tell, 'greener' 'renewable' energies will be prevalent in the future, and at the same time, a bird that pathway kills with the green energy stone is most likely waste and pollution. It is a fact it will happen. It is a fact it will need to happen, the exponential non sustainable ways of modern industrial consumerism, waste, pollution, destruction paradigm will not last the longest. Perhaps it is not meant to, perhaps it is not possible to last that long. How long ago was the industrial revolution? Perhaps these couple hundred years of technological growth spurt is meant to catapult us into a crossroads, where we now have the technology, and resources, man power, and brain power, and knowledge about science, the ecosystem and environment, to plan for a smarter, more sustainable, path for humanity, to ensure that the descendants, and inheritors of this planet, are proud of their ancestors, and have something worthy to inherit.