Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Think climate change isn't man-made? Then PROVE it: Professor offers $30,000 reward for anyone who

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   


Texas-based professor has issued a challenge to climate change deniers
Dr Keating is offering £17,500 ($30,000) to anyone that can disprove the theory that human activity is warming the planet
He is so sure of his claim that he is not expecting to pay out any time soon
Anyone can enter the competition and the work doesn't need to be original
But Dr Keating says he will be the final judge on winning or losing entries.


Think climate change isn't man-made? Then PROVE it: Professor offers $30,000 reward for anyone who can disprove theory

Just throwing it out .
I believe money always speeds things up,
But it's impossible to prove . What u think and it's my first post be gentle




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Rather easy to prove climate change isn't man made.

The climate was changing on this rock long before man was ever 'born'.

Where's my prize ?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
You can't prove it, just as you can't prove it is.
It's easy to put your money up for something you know can't be proven.

I offer $50,000 if you can prove there is a GOD.

No opinions, or circumstantial evidence.......Solid proof that will make me believe.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

Yes, I too believe that will be impossible to Prove or Disprove ... ( and the man will be able to keep his $30,000.00 ).

HOWEVER

How does he explain Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

UNLESS

He can PROVE that MAN is Populating these other Planets and Moon too.

.
edit on 30-6-2014 by FarleyWayne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
There are many factors that have contributed the major, global climactic changes on Earth in the past. Volcanic eruptions were a big one(of course, I'm including flood basalts as well)
Climate models are tricky things, too many variables for anyone's liking, if I'm honest. I give those men and women credit for trying to wade through that noise...

That said, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the Earth is getting hotter from just being in an ice age after the exponential increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that has resulted from the uncovering and burning of large carbon reserves known as fossil fuels? ;D



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: FarleyWayne
a reply to: Denoli

To Prove or Disprove.

Yes, I too believe that will be impossible to Prove or Disprove ... ( and the man will be able to keep his $30,000.00 ).

HOWEVER

How can anyone explain warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

UNLESS

Man has ALSO populated these other planets.
.
i believe what's happening now on earth has happened over and over again but with a subtle variation over time , nothing new just life . Everything will eventually get disproven then proven then disproven



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Here listen:

Imagine if you will that a person just signed up for this site today. Came to this thread. Read a few posts.

Then claimed to know EVERYTHING there is about this site.

Just got here. Making grandiose claims.

That is what the global warming crowd is doing.

Mankind has only been here for a blink in the cosmic eye.

He likes to think he knows everything about everything, but the truth is ?

He doesn't.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Well... it just got a bit easier to prove.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
There are many factors that have contributed the major, global climactic changes on Earth in the past. Volcanic eruptions were a big one(of course, I'm including flood basalts as well)
Climate models are tricky things, too many variables for anyone's liking, if I'm honest. I give those men and women credit for trying to wade through that noise...

That said, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the Earth is getting hotter from just being in an ice age after the exponential increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that has resulted from the uncovering and burning of large carbon reserves known as fossil fuels? ;D
It's great how the scientists investigate whether there is or not and none ever say , we'll we just haven't got a clue!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

So the climate change of the last ICE AGE...was man made? I think we can prove it was not. The climate has been constantly changing for millions of years.

Please put my check in the mail. Thank you



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

What happened to the $10,000 Challenge? He upped the prize already?

Of course when it's virtually uncollectable, he might as well make it a few million.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

Plenty of scientists will tell you they haven't a clue. Although I'm not a scientist yet, I'd be inclined to answer with an "I'm not sure if mankind is the cause." I'd certainly say mankind is a factor, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and was the major factor for warming in the geologic past. (Some others are atmospheric H2O and methane) These gases can be natural or "man-made"(for lack of better word), but mankind is surely dumping them in the atmosphere so it isn't really a matter of if we are doing something... it is a matter of what? And did we cause it? Who knows...

But let me say this, throwing up your hands and saying "I don't know" doesn't help anyone figure it out. As a climate scientist, it would get you fired simply because you're not contributing. No one will ever be sure, there will be no proof, all we have are models that point reliably one way or the other and models can be made to counteract those. Too many variables for my liking...



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Denoli

Plenty of scientists will tell you they haven't a clue. Although I'm not a scientist yet, I'd be inclined to answer with an "I'm not sure if mankind is the cause." I'd certainly say mankind is a factor, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and was the major factor for warming in the geologic past. (Some others are atmospheric H2O and methane) These gases can be natural or "man-made"(for lack of better word), but mankind is surely dumping them in the atmosphere so it isn't really a matter of if we are doing something... it is a matter of what? And did we cause it? Who knows...

But let me say this, throwing up your hands and saying "I don't know" doesn't help anyone figure it out. As a climate scientist, it would get you fired simply because you're not contributing. No one will ever be sure, there will be no proof, all we have are models that point reliably one way or the other and models can be made to counteract those. Too many variables for my liking...
throwing up your hands and saying "I don't know" doesn't help anyone figure it out. But lying does ?
I'm all for no one has a clue but believe those vents under the sea are pumping a lot more stuff out then we ever will by far they will .



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

What happened to the $10,000 Challenge? He upped the prize already?

Of course when it's virtually uncollectable, he might as well make it a few million.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


I suspect there is a direct correlation between his 'confidence' in his positions' ultimate vindication ... and the timidity or bravado of the cash prize.

He's three times surer than he was yesterday.... umph! Talk about a chip on his shoulder!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
What will happen here is that there will be hundreds of claimants insisting their respective proofs are valid and the professor insisting they're not.
edit on C0330f30America/ChicagoMonday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel
What will happen here is that there will be hundreds of claimants insisting their respective proofs are valid and the professor insisting they're not.

Maybe he's bringing a book out maybe free publicity !



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

Hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor are not pumping out CO2. They are pumping up mostly brine, extra saline water, likely sourced from magmatic origins and water trapped in the oceanic rocks during formation. These brines can carry sulphides and other potentially harmful minerals, making them toxic and potentially hazardous, but these sulphides are in a nearly anoxic condition under pressure and at a cold temperature (once the are removed from the area of the heat) where they are practically inert.
If you want to talk about deep-sea methane crystals being heated to the point of melting and raising through the sea into the atmosphere, acting like the greenhouse gas that it is, well that's fine. But that's what we call a positive feedback loop, in which case we needed heating to cause the melting which causes more heating. That somewhat demonstrates the problem I'm trying to discuss here... Climate scientists aren't all liars and cheats and shills... Nature includes some of the most complex systems we can deal with and we can only make models based on what we know. When we discover a new feeback loop, positive or negative, it needs to be added to the model. Science changes because we learn, not because we need to shape a theory to fit our models.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
There are many factors that have contributed the major, global climactic changes on Earth in the past. Volcanic eruptions were a big one(of course, I'm including flood basalts as well)
Climate models are tricky things, too many variables for anyone's liking, if I'm honest. I give those men and women credit for trying to wade through that noise...

That said, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the Earth is getting hotter from just being in an ice age after the exponential increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that has resulted from the uncovering and burning of large carbon reserves known as fossil fuels? ;D


Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the magnetic field has been weakening over the last 100+ years. Isn't it remarkable that with a magnetic field that is currently 15% weaker than 100 years ago that we are seeing more radiation from the sun leaking through? Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that it's over the last 100+ years that, according to the climate change religion, that man has caused the climate changes?

But...hey! There is no money to be made by claiming the magnetic field is responsible...there IS, however, tons of money to be made if man is, supposedly, responsible.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Like I said, there are plenty of variables. The Earth has seen multiple pole reversals in the geologic past, and although I am unfamiliar with any climatic changes being linked to these periods of weakening and reversal, I will not claim that it is not a possibility. And even if there isn't evidence for it in the past, that does not rule out it's potential impact in the present. The Earth has not been stable these last 4.5 billion years, so how it responded before might be different to how it responds now... I may sound like a broken record, but I'm gonna say it again. Too many variables.
And to be fair, I did sound a bit condescending there, which I didn't mean to. (Not in that post, at least.) I meant only to show a correlation, and I will be the first to admit that correlation does not indicate causation.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The challenge is laughable simple because he gets to decide.

If he were serious about it, he'd use a non-biased third part who gets to decide if someone proves it or not.

Just more posturing that actually doesn't mean anything.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join