The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

[Gravitymaster 0]

Here's your chance to win $100,000. just by providing scientific proof that humans are causing global warming. This should be a very easy task for some of the genius's we have here on DZ.Com Please post your entries here after submitting them so we can share in your brilliance.

http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

[billvon 3,070]

Tell you what. You spot me the $15 "entry fee" and I'll enter! (Personally I have no desire to pay for another internet get-rich-quick scheme, but if you want to pay I'll do the rest.)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Tell you what. You spot me the $15 "entry fee" and I'll enter! (Personally I have no desire to pay for another internet get-rich-quick scheme, but if you want to pay I'll do the rest.)

Bill - the rules seems rather subjective... I don't think you'll win it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Bill - the rules seems rather subjective... I don't think you'll win it.

You think THAT'S the reason nobody is going to win?

You should cruise their web site and find out who they really are and where they get their "instructional" materials.

This isn't a get rich scheme, this is simply a way to continue the propaganda of doubt.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[D22369 0]

now thats some funny shit...


once upon a time, the earth was very warm with alot of rainforests.... Then it got cold- ya know...lotsa ice and now we are merely headed toward that again.
the fossil records show this to be as accurate as we can be.

Fucking alarmists

YMMV

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[sv3n 0]

Yeah that's great...........looks up the Steven Milloy wiki link............"Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes to be false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, secondhand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease." the man's debunked second-hand smoke, very credible source there. Just follow his rules and then anything that he doesn't like will be found inadmissable.

Newsweek just had a big thing on global warming and the nay-sayers and how they're funded, here's the link for the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Here's another article that I found that's pretty interestinghttp://www.infoimagination.org/ps/warm/index.html, here's a clip that states our problems: "our challenge
History shows that democracratic forms of government react poorly when facing a potential crisis. Due to the power of special interest groups, governmental action becomes gridlocked. For example, a $40,000 study recently reported that 864,000 Blacks and 511,000 Hispanics would lose their jobs if the U.S. adopts a United Nations' treaty to reduce greenhouse gases. Who commissioned the study? A coal industry group, the Center for Energy and Economic Development, the A. Phillip Randolph Institute, the Latin American Management Association, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Institute for Latino Development, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement [Weekly Alibi, July 13-19, p.9]."

And of course it wouldn't be our fault, it's not like there's people with enough proof for this to take place.......http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6908719/site/newsweek/

You gotta realize where the motives come from here............the nay-sayers are paid for by the oil, coal, etc. corporations.....they're told to keep the public buying. It's the exact same thing the tobacco industry did with cigarettes......"no they're good for you" "there is no link to cancer". People believed them with that too. Why, because they had "experts" and "scientists" that were paid by the tobacco company to find the results that they wanted. This is the exact same thing. And how long did the tobacco company get away with that..........it took them decades to finally admit that they were lying to make a profit. Plus, the guy in charge of this country....guess what, his family and friends got and are still getting rich and richer off of oil. Why do you think he's not agreeing to cut down greenhouse emissions. "Gotta keep 'em buying while we can, we need another couple of billion".

...and you're in violation of your face!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Tell you what. You spot me the $15 "entry fee" and I'll enter! (Personally I have no desire to pay for another internet get-rich-quick scheme, but if you want to pay I'll do the rest.)

You split the $100,000 with me and you got a deal.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Tell you what. You spot me the $15 "entry fee" and I'll enter! (Personally I have no desire to pay for another internet get-rich-quick scheme, but if you want to pay I'll do the rest.)

You split the $100,000 with me and you got a deal.

hey, that sounds fair.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,070]

>You split the $100,000 with me and you got a deal.

OK!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>You split the $100,000 with me and you got a deal.

OK!

PM your mailing address.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

This isn't a get rich scheme, this is simply a way to continue the propaganda of doubt.

And the masses still fall for it. Look who runs www.junkscience.com. Steven Milloy, this is the guy who in 2001 after Sept 11th said the towers would have stood longer had they used asbestos.

http://www.webcitation.org/5PdVdI80D

He wrote this 3 days after 9/11. After reading this how can anyone take this guy seriously.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

This isn't a get rich scheme, this is simply a way to continue the propaganda of doubt.

And the masses still fall for it. Look who runs www.junkscience.com. Steven Milloy, this is the guy who in 2001 after Sept 11th said the towers would have stood longer had they used asbestos. That is a true statement..Had the towers had the asbestos insulation on them they would not have been subjected to as much heat. Some of the tower had the material removed after the envios when nuts over this stuff. Same as when NASA could not use freon to make the external tank isulation. Not using freon in the process made the insulation not as strong. The NASA internal documents stated this before the shuttle acident. Thanks envios again. DDT is anther subject you might want to look further into before you call him a nut
http://www.webcitation.org/5PdVdI80D

He wrote this 3 days after 9/11. After reading this how can anyone take this guy seriously.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

I just started the entry process and unfortunately will not be able to enter, since I do not agree with his premise. His challenge is to disprove these two statements:

-------
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
-------

That statement is correct. There are locations on the planet that will not warm up "predictably, discernibly, and significantly" as a result of climate change. The average surface temperature will continue to increase, but some areas (say, coastal tropical areas that now get more rain) may indeed see _cooler_ temperatures since it will be cloudy and rainy more often.


--------
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.
--------

This, as a prediction, is impossible to disprove (or prove) with any certainty. You can definitely assign likely costs and outcomes, but since we can't even predict what our own stock market will do, coming up with firmer numbers is an exercise in futility. It would be akin to a smoker saying "PROVE I will die of cancer and I'll quit, otherwise there's no point!" You can't; you can only give probabilities.

So let me know if you'd like your check returned, or if you want me to do something else with it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I just started the entry process and unfortunately will not be able to enter, since I do not agree with his premise. His challenge is to disprove these two statements:

-------
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
-------

That statement is correct. There are locations on the planet that will not warm up "predictably, discernibly, and significantly" as a result of climate change. The average surface temperature will continue to increase, but some areas (say, coastal tropical areas that now get more rain) may indeed see _cooler_ temperatures since it will be cloudy and rainy more often.


--------
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.
--------

This, as a prediction, is impossible to disprove (or prove) with any certainty. You can definitely assign likely costs and outcomes, but since we can't even predict what our own stock market will do, coming up with firmer numbers is an exercise in futility. It would be akin to a smoker saying "PROVE I will die of cancer and I'll quit, otherwise there's no point!" You can't; you can only give probabilities.

So let me know if you'd like your check returned, or if you want me to do something else with it.

Billvon, no disrespect intended but what you support and post is a prediction too! Correct?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

>Billvon, no disrespect intended but what you support and post is a
>prediction too!

Yes. Here is a provable prediction:

Smoking regularly makes it much more likely that you will die of lung cancer or heart disease.

Here is a NON provable prediction:

You will certainly die of lung cancer if you smoke.

See the difference?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

This is a general statement, without specific parameters. It's about something that is "the norm", not "the exception".

Quote

That statement is correct. There are locations on the planet that will not warm up "predictably, discernibly, and significantly" as a result of climate change. The average surface temperature will continue to increase, but some areas (say, coastal tropical areas that now get more rain) may indeed see _cooler_ temperatures since it will be cloudy and rainy more often.

This is an example of "the exception".... used to somehow disprove "the norm".

It's kind of like saying Global Warming is not occurring because it snowed in southern California last week.

[speedy 0]

Quote

>Billvon, no disrespect intended but what you support and post is a
>prediction too!

Yes. Here is a provable prediction:

Smoking regularly makes it much more likely that you will die of lung cancer or heart disease.

Here is a NON provable prediction:

You will certainly die of lung cancer if you smoke.

See the difference?

Sorry but I just don't buy your constant comparisons of AGW and smoking.

There is no down-side to giving up smoking. There are certainly down-sides to giving up cheap and abundant energy to which we currently have no reasonable alternative.

Just wait until the oil runs out and watch the chaos ensue.

I do agree with you that the Junkman has put up a challenge that is impossible to meet. But that is what his aim is, to show that the alarmists are just spouting hot air. You yourself posted about the North West Passage being open, but would you post that the there is a record amount of ice cover in the southern hemisphere this year? No, because it does not fit your agenda.

There is no solid evidence as to how much man has contributed to the current warming of the planet, just guesses.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

>Billvon, no disrespect intended but what you support and post is a
>prediction too!

Yes. Here is a provable prediction:

Smoking regularly makes it much more likely that you will die of lung cancer or heart disease.

Here is a NON provable prediction:

You will certainly die of lung cancer if you smoke.

See the difference?

Sorry but I just don't buy your constant comparisons of AGW and smoking.

There is no down-side to giving up smoking. There are certainly down-sides to giving up cheap and abundant energy to which we currently have no reasonable alternative.

Just wait until the oil runs out and watch the chaos ensue.

I do agree with you that the Junkman has put up a challenge that is impossible to meet. But that is what his aim is, to show that the alarmists are just spouting hot air. You yourself posted about the North West Passage being open, but would you post that the there is a record amount of ice cover in the southern hemisphere this year? No, because it does not fit your agenda.

There is no solid evidence as to how much man has contributed to the current warming of the planet, just guesses.

From your source:

"Correction: we had previously reported that there had been a new SH historic maximum ice area. Unfortunately, we found a small glitch in our software. The timeseries have now been corrected and are showing that we are very close to, but not yet, a new historic maximum sea ice area for the Southern Hemisphere."

And it should be noted that this near "record" is only since 1979.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Billvon, no disrespect intended but what you support and post is a
>prediction too!

Yes. Here is a provable prediction:

Smoking regularly makes it much more likely that you will die of lung cancer or heart disease.

Here is a NON provable prediction:

You will certainly die of lung cancer if you smoke.

See the difference?

Sorry but I just don't buy your constant comparisons of AGW and smoking.

There is no down-side to giving up smoking. There are certainly down-sides to giving up cheap and abundant energy to which we currently have no reasonable alternative.

Just wait until the oil runs out and watch the chaos ensue.

I do agree with you that the Junkman has put up a challenge that is impossible to meet. But that is what his aim is, to show that the alarmists are just spouting hot air. You yourself posted about the North West Passage being open, but would you post that the there is a record amount of ice cover in the southern hemisphere this year? No, because it does not fit your agenda.

There is no solid evidence as to how much man has contributed to the current warming of the planet, just guesses.

From your source:

"Correction: we had previously reported that there had been a new SH historic maximum ice area. Unfortunately, we found a small glitch in our software. The timeseries have now been corrected and are showing that we are very close to, but not yet, a new historic maximum sea ice area for the Southern Hemisphere."

And it should be noted that this near "record" is only since 1979.

And it should be noted that the record minimum in the artic is also since 1979.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,070]

>This is a general statement . . .

Yes, that's how most people would read it. However, based on the rest of the website, all he would have to do is prove temperatures are declining in one place on the planet, and the statement is (literally) proved false. That very argument has been used here on SC before; I have no illusions that this challenge will be any more commonsense. Especially when a commonsense interpretation could cost him thousands of dollars.

[billvon 3,070]

>There is no down-side to giving up smoking.

[denier mode on]

WHAT??? You gain weight! You put hardworking american farmers out of business! You cause increases in stress - and stress has been PROVEN to cause heart disease! And besides, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that giving up smoking will prevent cancer!

Why do you hate american farmers so much? We've seen your claims before, supported by your heavily subsidized anti-american organizations out to push false science. Just go to the Council for Tobacco Research and read their peer-reviewed medical studies that expose the truth. If you have an open mind, then you will discover that all the so-called "consensus" about cigarettes causing cancer is nothing of the sort! But that doesn't fit your anti-smoker agenda, so I guess you never will.

[denier mode off]

>Just wait until the oil runs out and watch the chaos ensue.

Uh, right. And the more we burn the sooner that day comes. Should we burn as much as possible?

>I do agree with you that the Junkman has put up a challenge that is
>impossible to meet. But that is what his aim is, to show that the
>alarmists are just spouting hot air.

So dishonesty exposes dishonesty?

Well, in that case, please prove that the earth is a perfect sphere! If you can't, does that indicate that the people who claim it's round are "spouting hot air?" Does that prove that the flat-earthers have a good point after all?

>You yourself posted about the North West Passage being open, but
>would you post that the there is a record amount of ice cover in the
>southern hemisphere this year? No, because it does not fit your agenda.

There is not a record amount of ice on Antarctica this year. The original claim was for sea ice EXTENT, not AMOUNT. The amount is decreasing; the extent, while large this year, is not a record.

>There is no solid evidence as to how much man has contributed to the
>current warming of the planet, just guesses.

There is quite solid evidence that:

1) man has increased the amount of CO2 in the air by 50%

2) it is not being removed fast enough by natural processes

3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms planets progressively more as the concentration goes up

4) the earth has indeed been warming, and that warming has pretty closely matched CO2 concentrations.

It's as if you saw someone throw a match onto a pile of kindling, saw a small fire start, and watched the fire spread to the larger pile of wood. Can you PROVE he started the fire? No. The match might have gone out at the same time a decaying twig spontaneously combusted and began the fire. But that's not a reasonable conclusion.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>This is a general statement . . .

Yes, that's how most people would read it. However, based on the rest of the website, all he would have to do is prove temperatures are declining in one place on the planet, and the statement is (literally) proved false. That very argument has been used here on SC before; I have no illusions that this challenge will be any more commonsense. Especially when a commonsense interpretation could cost him thousands of dollars.

So dishonesty exposes dishonesty?

[billvon 3,070]

>So dishonesty exposes dishonesty?

Ha! You used a line I used and just posted it as a reply with no context, even though makes no sense when used in this way! Very witty and cutting.

Now - do you have anything to say about the subject at hand? Perhaps using some of your own words.

[piper17 1]

Yes, the earth has been warming..and cooling..and warming for millions of years.

How does one explain this when it predates industrialization by man..in fact, previous warming and cooling periods predate man?

Recent warming periods date to Roman Empire times as well as medieval times. To what do you attribute that warming? To what could you attribute the subsequent cooling ie "the little ice age"?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>So dishonesty exposes dishonesty?

Ha! You used a line I used and just posted it as a reply with no context, even though makes no sense when used in this way! Very witty and cutting.

And we have a big "whoosh" going out to our listener Billvon.

LOL This is fun.