Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Want to Disprove Man-Made Climate Change? A Scientist Will Give You $10,000 if You Can
The Blaze ^ | June 25, 2014 | Liz Klimas

Posted on 06/25/2014 12:24:02 PM PDT by Twotone

A physics professor is so fed up with the claims made by “climate change deniers” that he has launched a “$10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge.”

The challenge issued by Dr. Christopher Keating, a professor who previously taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, according to a news release, will award prize money to anyone who uses the scientific method to prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change.

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agw; challenge; climatechange; climatechangefraud; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
"Keating...wrote on his blog that he would be the final judge of any entries and would provide his comments “on why any entry fails to prove the point.”
1 posted on 06/25/2014 12:24:02 PM PDT by Twotone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Why feed a fool?


2 posted on 06/25/2014 12:26:17 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Also he’s engaging in the usual fraud of elastic terminology.

Why take the bait, anybody. Though he might be hooted at in independent commentary.


3 posted on 06/25/2014 12:27:57 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

I see so the default position on the subject is that it’s true despite the fact that there’s no scientific evidence to support the theory. And, oh BTW, we should destroy our economy based on that default position?


4 posted on 06/25/2014 12:28:06 PM PDT by Renkluaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

How do you prove a negative?


5 posted on 06/25/2014 12:28:37 PM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

As Charlie Rangel would say, “Chump change”. Is this all the fool is willing to lose? Why don’t he PUT SOME MONEY where his big mouth is. Ten grand isn’t worth anybody’s time.


6 posted on 06/25/2014 12:29:03 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Feed the wacko enrviromentalists to the starving polar bears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Ever heard of the mini-ice age? The climate changes... even before the SUV.

Where do I pick up my check?


7 posted on 06/25/2014 12:29:10 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

A “scientist” wants people to prove a negative? Didn’t he encounter a course in logic somewhere in his science education?


8 posted on 06/25/2014 12:29:13 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (When I first read it, " Atlas Shrugged" was fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
A physics professor High Priest in the Cult of Global Warmism is so fed up with the claims
9 posted on 06/25/2014 12:29:13 PM PDT by SIDENET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

That’s what atheists argue.


10 posted on 06/25/2014 12:29:16 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
It's a very common fool's wager.

Offer someone a sum that sounds large, but which is far less money than it would cost to do the comprehensive research work.

He is saying: "We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars building our castle in the air - we'll pay you ten thousand if you can dismantle it with one blow."

11 posted on 06/25/2014 12:30:32 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

I would think it would be as hard to disprove it as it is to prove it. Climate changes. It’s done so throughout this planet’s history. It may well be changing now. But how much of that is the natural course of events and how much is due to man? I don’t know how you can quantify one over the other.


12 posted on 06/25/2014 12:30:46 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Please contact me here so I can tell you where to send my check.

13 posted on 06/25/2014 12:31:06 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

God is doing it. If he can’t disprove God then pay up ahole.


14 posted on 06/25/2014 12:31:27 PM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

LOL. How do you prove to a religious zealot that he worships a false god?


15 posted on 06/25/2014 12:31:39 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s ((If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

OLD 3-way incandesce light bulb, hold hand about 1 foot away, turn bulb on low, then medium, then high. Can a difference be felt?

From “Watch Mr. Wizard”.


16 posted on 06/25/2014 12:32:30 PM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
will award prize money to anyone who uses the scientific method to prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change.

Playing word games. Everything that physically happens in the world is a factor. The butterfly in the Amazon analogy.

He is very safe making the bet but it still proves nothing.

17 posted on 06/25/2014 12:32:39 PM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Nobody has definitively traced out “sensitivity mechanisms.” Nobody knows if the world is primed for negative feedback, positive feedback, or just to jolly well barge on doing what it wants to do, when it wants to do it, no matter who tries to help or hinder.


18 posted on 06/25/2014 12:33:02 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
But a win would be big and worth millions in the court of public opinion.

Conservative blog sites would have a great time. It could easily sink the AGW ship.

19 posted on 06/25/2014 12:33:16 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Dr. Keating must have a book coming out. “Look at me, everybody, look at me!”


20 posted on 06/25/2014 12:33:36 PM PDT by workerbee (The President of the United States is PUBLIC ENEMY #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
has has not been a factor 

Define "has not been a factor."

Does this mean anything above absolutely none?

-PJ

21 posted on 06/25/2014 12:33:56 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Since Keating and the other alarmists can’t prove their theory either, it sounds like a catch 22 to me-I wouldn’t take the bait just to give him something to talk about...


22 posted on 06/25/2014 12:35:59 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
And worse when you have thousands of non-linear variables. Approximations are made that will definitely affect the calculations. Especially after thousands of iterations. Garbage in more garbage out.

And many of the variables may “butterfly effect” the results.

23 posted on 06/25/2014 12:37:01 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

“to anyone who uses the scientific method to prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change.”

First, he makes you prove a negative. Then, he uses the vague phrase “human activity” which could be almost anything. Then, he says “a factor” which could be .000000000001 of the total conditions affecting climate. Then, he says “leading to” instead of causing. Then, he alone decides whether the proof is valid and he is forced to pay $10,000.

This is just stupid. Why would anyone waste their time and effort on this.


24 posted on 06/25/2014 12:37:18 PM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

That’s what I was thinking. How about PROVING it, to begin with. They have yet to do so.


25 posted on 06/25/2014 12:37:33 PM PDT by cld51860 (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

He’s got the scientific process exactly backward.

It is up to him to prove his theorem, and then to have his results repeated by others.

By reserving judgment exclusively to himself, he has completely invalidated the scientific merits of the proposal.


26 posted on 06/25/2014 12:37:59 PM PDT by MortMan ("Homeland" may be a documentary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
Anthony Watts has already disproved it, but he uses facts and that's racist.
27 posted on 06/25/2014 12:38:11 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detective

It deserves to be mocked. NOBODY should send him anything.


28 posted on 06/25/2014 12:38:19 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
What a disgusting leftist.

I wonder what is the true education of this "scientist."

29 posted on 06/25/2014 12:38:48 PM PDT by sand88 (We can never legislate our way back to Liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Something about the eyes..............

30 posted on 06/25/2014 12:39:17 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

You can’t prove a negative.............


31 posted on 06/25/2014 12:40:01 PM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
A “scientist” wants people to prove a negative? Didn’t he encounter a course in logic somewhere in his science education?

And that's what emboldens him even on this small scale, knowing he's got nothing to lose especially if he's the arbiter of who might win the $10k.

HF

32 posted on 06/25/2014 12:40:11 PM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

A more interesting challenge would be to prove AGW is real. All they have are an hypothesis and a theory which the scientist who conceived it said was invalid before his death, heavily rigged computer models, and the bought and paid for opinions of an academic cadre, very few of whom have degrees in the atmospheric sciences. We’re supposed to rely on the opinions of astronomers, physicists, biologists, and a divinity school flunk out and failed political candidate.


33 posted on 06/25/2014 12:41:47 PM PDT by katana (Just my opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Apparently he doesn’t know that the scientific method can’t be used to prove a negative.


34 posted on 06/25/2014 12:42:06 PM PDT by thorvaldr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

In this case one would just need to show a natural reason for the increase in temperatures.


35 posted on 06/25/2014 12:42:41 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thorvaldr

This ought to get him ridicule from all scientists — he’s abusing the very concept of science.


36 posted on 06/25/2014 12:43:16 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

I would like if the climatologists who are the most vocal proponents of anthropomorphic global warming would be willing, if the technology existed, to significantly decrease atmospheric CO2 levels. Do they have enough confidence in their theories and computer modeling to actually feel comfortable altering the Earth’s atmosphere? Would they be confident in the outcome of such manipulation?

I’m going to guess that the answer is no.


37 posted on 06/25/2014 12:43:46 PM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Here's the lie-teller, and a sample from his blog. Climate Change Denial is the Moral Equivalent of Racism

Fishtank's note: This is what the agitator posted on his bolg.

38 posted on 06/25/2014 12:44:00 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Easy: Prove there is man-mad climate change.


39 posted on 06/25/2014 12:44:30 PM PDT by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
It sounds as though he's admitting he can't prove GW is a fact.
40 posted on 06/25/2014 12:44:32 PM PDT by Know et al (Keep on Freepin'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

” would like if the” = I would like to know if the...


41 posted on 06/25/2014 12:45:05 PM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

They are the ones proposing the theory. The burden of proof remains on them.


42 posted on 06/25/2014 12:45:22 PM PDT by Politicalkiddo (The more helpless the victim, the more hideous the assault.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

All will be told simply, “You’re wrong. The consensus has been reached. All scientists are in agreement. Next.”


43 posted on 06/25/2014 12:45:47 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Is this guy even to stupid to know it’s impossible to prove a negative , not to mention even the very premise of the question is in doubt.


44 posted on 06/25/2014 12:46:22 PM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thorvaldr

What it is possible to show is that with the present level of understanding it is an undecidable question, and also it’s possible to show that many warming scenarios can make for a more (rather than less) hospitable earth. So the wise money is to stop panicking and start preparing in case the world really does get warmer.


45 posted on 06/25/2014 12:47:29 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
“We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars building our castle in the air - we'll pay you ten thousand if you can dismantle it with one blow.”

He is the only judge.

What he is saying is: “We spent hundreds of millions building these fraudulent theories and I will pay you $10,000 if I, and I alone, say you have proven them wrong.”

46 posted on 06/25/2014 12:47:53 PM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

I am still awaiting scientific proof that man causes global warming. This guy could start by providing his proof. Then people could pick apart his proof and then send to a 3rd pty for review. He has it backwards. His ilk needs to prove global warming exists. The burden of proof is on them. Hard to prove a negative.


47 posted on 06/25/2014 12:52:28 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

48 posted on 06/25/2014 12:54:31 PM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
will award prize money to anyone who uses the scientific method to prove that human activity has not been a factor leading to climate change.

An impossible threshhold to meet! "A FACTOR???"..., whether additive or subtractive, humans are on earth and, A Priori, they must be A FACTOR in whatever occurs!

49 posted on 06/25/2014 12:55:33 PM PDT by ExSES (the "bottom-line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thorvaldr

“Apparently he doesn’t know that the scientific method can’t be used to prove a negative.”

But it can be used to show what actually is causing global average temperatures to rise if it is not man made.


50 posted on 06/25/2014 12:55:39 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson