On the heals of David South offer to bet $1,000 to anyone regarding sea level change, along comes a Warmist with his own bet
(Climate Progress) When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, climate change deniers often draw upon the conspiracy that it’s is a fabricated theory invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Texas-based physicist is turning that notion on its head by offering $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can disprove mainstream, accepted climate science.
Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, says in his blog post that the rules are easy: there is no entry fee, participants must be over 18, and the scientific method must be employed.
Here’s how it works
1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
2. There is no entry fee;
3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;
4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;
5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.
That’s it! I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn’t you like to have a spare $10,000? After all, the skeptics all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn’t even have to be original. If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $10,000 is yours!
This is no joke. If someone can provide a proof that I can’t refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a check.
OK
Oh, wait, sorry, Warmists call it climate change because that allows them to roll in every change in the weather. Again, skeptics aren’t arguing that the world hasn’t warmed, we are arguing causation.
Here’s the problem with the bet: the term “climate change” is not defined. What, exactly, does Dr. Keating mean? Is it that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible? Or responsible for more than 50%? Or even have a low causation, such as the 10-15% I maintain? Does it cover just warming, or also cooling, cold snaps, snow? Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis? What is the time frame?
Keating said further: “I am certain my money is safe,†he says. “They are in the business of denial and deception, not science. But, if someone could give me a scientific proof global warming isn’t real, it would be worth the money.â€
He explicitly said “global warming” in that statement. Just send him your proof that the theory of AGW is false and you make yourself a cool $10K! And I’ll even match it! That’s $20 grand if you disprove the theory of AGW.
What would your proof look like? Just prove that the solar insolation has increased and is responsible. Or just prove that the magnetosphere deflects cosmic rays reducing the cloud cover. Just prove that the atmosphere and oceans are not actually warming (we know you claim to accept that it’s warming even though you deny daily that it’s warming). Just prove that the warming you claim may or may not exist is caused by something other than man-made greenhouse gases.
You typed: “No global warming for 17 years 9 months.”
Two sentences later you typed: “Again, skeptics aren’t arguing that the world hasn’t warmed, we are arguing causation.”
Which is it?
Reading through the comments on his blog and it is impossible to take him seriously.
He states that man is completely and solely responsible for any warming that has happened. Even most warmists don’t agree with this.
He dismisses natural cycles as having no bearing on the climate now. He basically says that these cycles have happened in the past but can’t be happening now.
He then spends some time shilling his book.
And then the conversation devolves into republican bashing and political BS. For a science claim that he wants to be refuted by science political discussions is hardly the way to go about it.
No matter what anyone says or submits, it will be rejected out of hand simply because he will be the sole judge and he is obviously biased.
Reading further, anything that someone posts asking for clarification or stating sound reasons why his little ‘bet’ is impossible for anyone to win, all he does is insult the poster. Nothing of substance nor any science.
Even at one point he justifies calling us deniers and actually does equate us with Holocaust Deniers saying we are no better than the Nazis.
The guy is a joke. His ‘challenge’ is impossible to meet, especially to his satisfaction. Sad to think that this guy teaches our youth.
“5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.”
So, no one will win, even if the Earth freezes into a solid ball.
They haven’t used the scientific method to prove that there IS man-caused climate change happening, but he wants people to use it to prove that there isn’t? Sure, bud. He sounds like a Branch Davidian or any other cultist that demands that you prove their magical revelations wrong with objective proof. If you say “there’s no evidence that aliens are hiding in that comet to take us away to eternal life”, they’ll say “you’re a hateful denier and you can’t prove that there are no aliens unless you kill yourself and go there with us”. You can’t win with cultists.
Once again, Jeff is wrong in anything that he says. Plus, he is beginning to not make sense.
Then there is the fact that this guy had a tie to the Navy, making John happy.
If you want to see a real parallel to what they are doing with this “science” just look at the cholesterol “science” that we have had to put up with for 50 years and which likely has resulted in the obesity epidemic we now have as well as the waste of money and effort on the real cause of vascular disease. I happens that much of this is summated in Time Magazine from two weeks ago and the Wall Street Journal and the Annals of Internal Medicine. Everything you were told about cholesterol and high fat diets was completely wrong. This was all proven “science” and was pushed by the government with the same methods as the climate junk.
Poor dave. Linking serum cholesterol to global warming will not win you the $20,000.
TIME and the WSJ are not to be trusted without corroboration, but the Annals of Internal Medicine is a solid journal. I’ll assume you’re talking about Chowdury’s meta-analysis. Here’s the follow-up in the journal Science that describes the corrections that had to be made in the original article. http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/03/scientists-fix-errors-controversial-paper-about-saturated-fats
Are you claiming that serum cholesterol is unimportant in coronary artery disease? Are you claiming that saturated fat in the diet has no effect on heart disease?
Just a reminder: Science is never “settled”, since new data can upend the old. On the other hand, with enough evidence, hypotheses become theories that can be debunked. The theory of AGW is supported by so much data that almost all scientists say it’s very likely to be the truth. All it takes to refute is data, and there’s $20,000 for the winner!
“It’s very likely to be the truth..” Either it is or it isn’t. And of course the guy in our little story has it exactly backwards. We don’t have to disprove it, he has to prove it. Someone should be offering him money to prove it. It’s just a variation of the old “prove you’re not beating your wife anymore” game. No, I don’t have to prove that I’ve stopped beating my wife, you have to first prove that I even did it to begin with. The climate circus continues, with one more fool showing….well, that he’s a fool.
j,
Yes. It is either true or not true. But how do you know which? The evidence overwhelmingly supports that the theory of AGW is true.
Scientific theories, for example, the theory of biological evolution (and the theory of AGW), are supported by so much evidence that they are accepted by the scientific community as the truth. I’m certain one can find actual scientists that believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old, and that a god or gods created humans as they are now. But most understand the Earth to be billions of years old and that humans (and other plants and animals) developed from common ancestors.
The problem with the bet is its premise.
Using the scientific method, “man-made” global climate change cannot be proven.
Thus, disproving it is impossible.
Cheap rhetorical arguments don’t seem to be the physicist’s strength.
Jeff,
The “corrections” in the paper were minimal and did not go to substance. But for that matter, I can reference my own research that I did to defend VA doctors in Federal court and proven in a judicial situation that cholesterol has nothing to do with CV disease. I used the very papers that others had to prove the connection. And, if you look closely at the new guidelines for statin use, you will find that for the first time the treatment is not linked to cholesterol management. This is used as an example of the pseudo-science employed by progressives and is an exact parallel to climate science and the anticipated manipulation of society that is desired.
dave,
The corrections were hardly minor. Did you read the paper or the corrections?
“… the authors misinterpreted one study on omega-3 fats, a type of unsaturated fat, to show a slightly negative effect while, in fact, it had shown a strong positive effect. The correction means that the meta-analysis now says people who report eating more of this particular fat have significantly less heart disease; previously, it said there was no significant effect.
Two important studies on omega-6 fatty acids were missed altogether.
The paper does not address what people who reduced their intake of saturated fats consumed instead. A 2009 review that the authors missed concluded that replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates had no benefit, while replacing them with polyunsaturated fats reduced the risk of heart disease. Several scientists say that should have been mentioned in the new paper.”
The paper alone argues that there is insufficient evidence to justify the saturated fat hypothesis, but the paper is sloppy and incomplete.
You say you “can” reference your own research, but you failed to do so. Why?
You also failed to cite the guidelines for statin use. Almost all statin research is funded by those who manufacture and sell statins, as regulated by the FDA, so I can understand your concern that the profit motive might bias the research. In the 2000s, Pfizer alone sold some $100 BILLION dollars of Lipitor worldwide. That’s a huge incentive to cheat. So, who stands to profit handsomely from global warming?
From the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109713060282:
Recommend aggressive statin treatment for the:
2) primary prevention in individuals with primary elevations of LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL
Why do they recommend aggressive statin treatment for subjects with serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol above 190 mg/dL, with the stated goal of lowering serum LDL-C 50%?
Statins lower cholesterol; statins lower the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Are all the benefits from reduced cholesterol? Probably not.
It also appears that substituting unsaturated for saturated fats in your diet reduces cardiovascular risk.
I would really like to see your “research” proving that serum cholesterol is unrelated to cardiovascular disease.
Perhaps far-rightists are just naturally contrarian and generally reject science. You appear to be wrong about cholesterol and heart disease and are wrong about climate science.
Jeff,
I am amazed at the way your mind in manipulated by propaganda. The AHA/ACC acknowledges that drugs can lower cholesterol by 40%, in the next sentence (in our literature) the statement is made that this lowering is not associated with an alteration in CV events or death. Now, statins will lower the incidence of CV disease. The number is a total reduction of 3% for one year. That is in incidence of CV events and not death. Death remains the same. Now, who is pushing this concept and who is benefiting from the guidelines? The physicians that are part of the peer review process and who write the guidelines. If you google the appropriate phrases you will find that any of these authors earn at least $50,000 from various drug companies. An example, look at the next Crestor commercial and you will see much about how the drug lowers cholesterol. Any mention of the reduction in heart attacks or strokes? No, that is because there is not a correlation. It is postulated that statins lower a strange inflammatory response that is the central item in causing CV disease. What is not mentioned is the enormous side effects of the drugs (only 50% can tolerate).
Now, who benefits from climate change “science”. Well, the scientist for sure in the form of grants. Then the whole issue is wrapped around the need for carbon tax and credits. That is clearly a great power for those controlling the situation. That is why conservatives will not acknowledge any link that would result in further loss of freedom for the little return that would occur in CO2 reduction.