Posted on 06/25/2014 12:24:02 PM PDT by Twotone
Every entry will "fail" because he never intends to pay. Take a hike jackass.
His money is pretty safe since it’s exceedingly difficult to prove a negative.
I would suggest that the onus is on the claimants to prove their assertion of man-made global warming is true.
But these are liberals so they’d just equivocate their way out of paying up. “It depends on the meaning of ‘global’ and ‘warming’ and ‘man-made’ and ...”
The IPCC has admitted that there has been no increase in global temps over the past 16 yrs even though the amount of CO2 has been increasing greatly over that time period.
AGW theory was cooked up not by a scientist but by a politician who is a divinity school dropout who has made a fortune on the scam. America has been switching over from coal to natural gas for its power plants, whereas there is no prospect that China will retrench its use of coal in the electric power plants it is building by the dozen. And yet the thrust of AGW propaganda is to cause reduction in CO2 generation by America. And simultaneously opposing exploitation of shale gas - and, for that matter, nuclear power which would have no CO2 emission.The supposed “proof” of AGW is nothing more than the output of computer models which cannot even correctly “predict" the past, but which are great at predicting AGW because predicting AGW is the intent and purpose of their creators.
BTW, the CO2 generation by man continues, but the global temperature isn’t rising. That’s why they call it “climate change” now - but there is no rationale I’m aware of for attributing anything but warming to CO2. But, whatever, dude. The reality is that no one can predict global climate very far into the future, tho my money is on the variability of the output of the Sun as the dominant driver of whatever changes may occur. It is possible that CO2 will be a problem in the future, but there’s really no knowing that - and assuming it “just to be safe” sounds nice but the cost would be in the trillions of dollars, enough to impoverish my grandchildren. So doing it “just because” is not a rational decision.
That's a stupid challenge. Of course human activity has been "a factor" in influencing climate. Roads, lawns, and croplands are a different color from the rest of the ground and reflect/absorb different amounts of energy than the surrounding terrain would - basic physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - again basic physics. People exhale CO2 and burning carbon-based fuels releases CO2 - basic chemistry. What is missing is the relevant coefficients, including positive and/or negative feedback. Will unregulated human activity change the earth's reflectivity and/or change the atmosphere's infrared transmission enough to raise temperatures by 0.01 degree C, 0.1 degree C, 1 degree C, or 10 degrees C, and will that change be up or down? Current models are ad hoc and arbitrary, driven more by politics and funding than by any valid math or science.
Even if I had the scientific knowledge to do this, the man would say I failed to prove the case.
This is easy....
Check the nearest planet on how much their climate has changed since we started tracking things like temp, gases, and such....
Has it changed at all...
If it has, that big yellow ball in the sky is the reason, not us insignificant bags of flesh....
bump
That is not even science. He should have stated significant factor. And what exactly is climate change ? perhaps a specific change in temperature ? What exact change over what time period ? Or perhaps a change in the amount of clouds or water vapor ? Again, how much change over what time period ? Perhaps he means a specific change in ocean temperature ? Again, how many degrees over what time period ? Perhaps he means a change in average wind speed ? Again, what exact change and over what exact time period ?
Those of us on the skeptic side are still waiting to see the actual science of climate change.
This challenge is an insidious game. . . to participate, to even attempt to prove the case, one has to accept the primary case. . . THAT GLOBULL WARMING IS EVEN OCCURRING REGARDLESS OF CAUSE! One must agree with a non-existent phenomenon.
This is a sensible as challenging people, for example, to prove that William Shakespeare did NOT ghost write Beethoven's Fifteenth Symphony for B flat Flugelhorns in F Sharp! Before you can even begin to prove the negative, you have to accept the positive asserted declaration of the truth that such a Flugelhorn symphony exists. (It doesn't.)
How about proving GW itself is real? Not some current position on an upswing on a cyclical warming/cooling curve, but a general warming trend that exists that includes those cycles when everything is made into a least squares linear regression plot? One that is actually discernible over geologic aeons?
I offer $10,000 to anyone who can disprove that the sun has not been “a factor” in climate change.
I offer $10,000 to anyone who can disprove that the my own personal farts have not been “a factor” in climate change.
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.