The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit.
- Juvenal, xiv.321.

The cause of global warming has been much debated. The establishment view, supported by corporate-funded research (ExxonMobil), holds that global climate changes are cyclical, over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control. Opposing this conventional wisdom, there is a growing, and increasingly vocal, opposition that point to pollution (specifically hydrocarbon emissions) in the atmosphere as the cause, and accuse the industrialized nations of "trashing the planet." And in the politics of the issue - which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money - the establishment has thus far prevailed. Still, the evidence is mounting; and we cannot long afford to turn a blind eye to what can be plainly seen. The earth is speaking to us, and we should listen - "for wisdom ever echoes nature’s voice."

Do you just copy and paste stuff that seems relevant to the issue?

I ran a search on your username and I found this exact post on another forum.

Jun 15 2007, 10:01 AM
The Randi Rhodes Show > Hit this Global Warming Poll

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I would hereby like to issue a counter challenge:

CHALLENGE

$100,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, BIRDS fly south in the winter. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

UGWC Hypothesis 1

Birds fly in random directions

UGWC Hypothesis 2

The benefits equal or exceed the costs of birds flying south for the winter are greater than them flying in random directions.

RULES

By submitting an entry to the contest, entrants agree to the following terms and conditions:

1. Entrants agreed to be bound by the UGWC Rules.
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
3. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.
4. The winner, if any, will receive $100,000 in a single, lump sum payment. JunkScience.com does not promise or guarantee that the UGWC will have any winner.
5. All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC.
6. All data used in an entry must be publicly available and readily accessible to the public.
7. Entries will be accepted starting August 7, 2007.
8. A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees.
9. No entries will be accepted after December 1, 2008.
10. The results of the UGWC will be announced on February 1, 2009.
11. All entries must be submitted in MS Word or PDF format.
12. Entries must include a summary or abstract of no more than 700 words for each hypothesis.
13. Entrants consent to their entries being posted on the contest web site for public review and comment.
14. Entrants waive all rights and claims against me related to, or arising from the UGWC.

I promise to give you the money as long as you fit all my unscientifically worded "purposely vague" criteria and I don't feel like redefining words.

Please paypal the 15 dollars to nbiggershaft.

x1000

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't think they will, but I think it's an interesting tactic. It's taking their own words and what they're reporting in the media against them. It's basically saying, you keep saying this. Ok prove it and I'll give you $100k. I think it's interesting and worthy of discussion. If you don't there are plenty of other threads

The premise of this thread is not to be fully serious in nature, but rather to point out the fact that JunkScience has offered this challenge. The challenge itself has a picture of Al Gore on top of the world and they have a youtube video showing his hypocrisies. It's not meant to be some grandiose politically movement or serious response. Take it for what it is.

This thread needs to be moved to the Speakeasy for the reasons listed below:

The threadstarter has admitted that the premise of the thread is not "fully serious."

The threadstarter has admitted that the challenge described in the initial thread post is not intended to be a "serious response" to the claims of Al Gore or climate scientists.

The threadstarter has characterized the challenge as no different than a "stunt."

The threadstarter has characterized the challenge as no different than "sensationalism."

The threadstarter has characterized the challenge as no different than "garbage."

-

Post reported.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Do you just copy and paste stuff that seems relevant to the issue?

I ran a search on your username and I found this exact post on another forum.

Jun 15 2007, 10:01 AM
The Randi Rhodes Show > Hit this Global Warming Poll

Maybe he posted it twice?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

This thread needs to be moved to the Speakeasy for the reasons listed below:

The threadstarter has admitted that the premise of the thread is not "fully serious."

The threadstarter has admitted that the challenge described in the initial thread post is not intended to be a "serious response" to the claims of Al Gore or climate scientists.

The threadstarter has characterized the challenge as no different than a "stunt."

The threadstarter has characterized the challenge as no different than "sensationalism."

The threadstarter has characterized the challenge as no different than "garbage."

-

Post reported.

All global warming in the media today is sensationalism, stunts and garbage in my opinion. That doesn't mean we can't talk about the issues in the scientific forum.

I don't really know what to tell you, if you have something personal feel free to use a PM or report posts. But please keep posts within threads on target and not on the users.

[ballz2wallz]

I think it's a legit challenge, one that they'll hold on to if they're proven wrong. They'll pay up. It's a stunt, sure, in that they know nobody can prove it, but it's also making a valid point.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's basically saying, you keep saying this. Ok prove it and I'll give you $100k.

But they can't "prove it" in this challenge because this challenge is a sensationalist garbage stunt, and is not serious... according to your own characterization.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think it's interesting and worthy of discussion.

You think a sensationalist garbage stunt is worthy of discussion? You think it actually proves something about the lack of facts on their side? You think a non-serious pseudo-scientific "challenge" is worthy of discussion anywhere but the Speakeasy?



You're wrong.

I do have to concede one point to you, JaJae. You've done a far better job demonstrating the utter vapidity of the AGW deniers side than I ever could.

Your personal hatred of Al Gore has made you latch onto this piece of garbage and deluded you into thinking that anyone is convinced by anything about in this "challenge" other than those who already fear and loathe Al Gore as much as you do. Absolutely no one else is buying the crap you are spewing.

And, IMHO you're being a poor excuse for a conservative, too. A real conservative would accept the claims of the "alarmists" based on the chance that the "alarmists" are right, not that they are wrong. It's called being "better safe than sorry." It's called "common sense."

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

All global warming in the media today is sensationalism, stunts and garbage in my opinion. That doesn't mean we can't talk about the issues in the scientific forum.

I don't really know what to tell you, if you have something personal feel free to use a PM or report posts. But please keep posts within threads on target and not on the users.

When those users post sensationalist garbage stunts and preen around thinking that they're scoring some big points against the AGW crowd, I'm going to call them on it, and I expect everyone else to call them on it too. I'm not going to let you get away with it in the Lab. Move this thread to the Speakeasy and you can talk about whatever fanciful garbage you wish in it. If you have it in the Lab, you are going to have people look at and discuss it seriously. If you, yourself, the threadstarter, admit that the thread is indeed NOT serious, do not go blaming it on anyone other than yourself if readers on the forum think that this thread should be in the Speakeasy, WHERE IT BELONGS.

You have a right to your own opinion. You do not have the right to your own facts.

Thank you, I WILL be PM'ing the moderators requesting that this thread be moved to the Speakeasy because you, the threadstarter, admitted that the thread was not meant to be taken seriously.

And, thank you, until this thread is moved to the Speakeasy, I WILL go through this thread and report each and every one of your posts as self admittedly unserious scientific discussion in a part of the forum reserved for serious scientific discussion.

Nothing personal, no hard feelings. But, you will not be allowed to post sensationalist garbage in the Lab without the possibility of a forum member calling on it.

And, I'm calling you on it. I will do so again if you continue to insist on posting such garbage.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Maybe he posted it twice?

His posts are strange, something about them looks like it's a bot or something looking for key words and posting canned responses, though I can't figure out why someone would want to do that. Maybe it's someone looking to forward a particular political agenda.

One of his posts about the supreme court was really long and complex... and totally unrelated to the thread, although I could see where a bot would hit on some key words and post the canned response. Does he ever respond directly to anyone?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

The politics of the global warming debate is short-sighted; it doesn’t see beyond the next election. For the powers that be, the true test of science is not empirical evidence but political correctness. As to the latter, one can be confident that, if need suit purpose, our political leaders would fund a study to show that the moon is made of blue cheese.

Case in point

Google the guys username. he comes up at all sorts of political message forums and most of the messages seem odd and not directly responding to anything except the general subject matter in the thread.

[WickedLou9]

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

He seems to be a bit of a philosopher and well-read fellow. I rather like his posts.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

He seems to be a bit of a philosopher and well-read fellow. I rather like his posts.

It seems to me to be the reponse that a machine would give, being triggered by certain key words to provide a specific and repeatable canned response. The responses may be well thought out in advance by a person, but they are stored and simply pasted by the bot into whatever conversation happens to hit a pre-programmed key word.

I'm still skeptical that this is actually a person.
This sort of discussion where people continually bring up the same sorts of issues would easily lend itself to something like this. How many times have we debated global warming, judicial activism, 2nd ammendment rights, abortion, etc. All one would need to do would be to come up with several well thought out arguements, and set the bot to be triggerd on key words to post your responses.

[thatguyoverthere]

JaJae,

In this thread you have said there is no evidence that human activity affects the climate, yet in this thread you have also stated that human activity "obviously" has an impact on the climate.

Care to explain the apparent contradiction?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

JaJae,

In this thread you have said there is no evidence that human activity affects the climate, yet in this thread you have also stated that human activity "obviously" has an impact on the climate.

Care to explain the apparent contradiction?

Geez this thread is old. You're gonna have to go ahead and show me much which posts you're referring to. I've posted a couple hundred times since the last person posted in this thread. I really can't remember what you're talking about, but it doesn't seem to take what I've said in context.

What I've said was there is no scientific evidence to prove their hypothesis wrong, in essence saying that there is no evidence to prove the media sensationalism. Without a doubt humans have an effect on climate. Nobody knows how strong that role is though and just about everything we hear in the media related to global warming is founded on sensationalism and not science.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Geez this thread is old. You're gonna have to go ahead and show me much which posts you're referring to. I've posted a couple hundred times since the last person posted in this thread. I really can't remember what you're talking about, but it doesn't seem to take what I've said in context.

So sorry to bother you with your own ancient 11 day old thread, or for expecting you to remember your own arguments, or to go back and read the thread yourself. I sincerely apologize and I do hope that you can forgive my breach of forum etiquette. Perhaps you should hurry and consider closing this thread before somebody gets any more wise ideas and attempts to do something foolish, such as join in the discussion sometime in the far, far, distant future (like.. early September or sometime like that.)

Some of us like to take our time and formulate a response in as careful and as deliberate a fashion as possible. I know this is not the norm around here, and again, I apologize for that. In my defense, I brought up this same question way back when you were allegedly paying attention to the thread. You ignored it then.

Let me try and bring you up to speed on the thread quickly: You're trying to use this challenge to score a point against Al Gore's science, while at the same time trying to absolve yourself of all responsibility to defend the scientific validity of the challenge itself.

As to my specific question, earlier in the thread I said this:

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Why are AGW deniers so wedded to this fringe science?

Why is it so darn hard to believe that 6 billion people and billions of vehicles and factories would have an effect on the environment of the planet?

And then you said this:

Originally Posted by JaJae

Obviously it has an impact. The question is does it have the impact people like Al Gore are claiming? If you think so it only costs $15 to make your case and win $100,000. Should be free money the way the media talks of global warming.

You keep slipping and sliding around. This is why I think you are being disingenuous with your argument.

When you say the following bolded text:

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's also no different than the Al Gore political stunts and the garbage pushed through our media daily. But I think that's the point. It makes us sit back and look at the garbage we are being fed and believe.

Evolution is backed by scientific empirical data. Man made global warming is not.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because it's news. Al Gore and essentially the entire argument presented by the media on global warming is being completely challenged with a cash reward. The only reason global warming has turned into stunts and garbage is because of the way it has been reported recently in our media.

The simple scientific defenses have been attacked. They can't get their works published. They can't speak out without the media attacking and slandering them. They can't do anything other than make a sensationalist piece here. They have been BEGGING Al Gore and other climatologists to public debates spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to get someone to debate them on the facts. Nobody dares accept that challenge.

We live in an age where the fallen bridge in Minnesota is blamed on global warming.

Look at the cover of Newseek:


"Murdoch's war plan, Global Warming is a Hoax.* Or so claim well-funded naysayers..."

Newsweek is run by MSNBC, MSNBC is basically Soros. This is what America reads on global warming. They hear the sensationalism. A bridge falls and America is up in arms, before they blame it on Bush they blame it on global warming. Everything in our society today is blamed on global warming it seems. It is always in our media and it is always sensationalized. Anyone who challenges the sensationalism is chastised and slandered.

This is the only way to make a point. It is not JunkScience who is making any claims. They're simply saying: You believe it, you say it, PROVE IT! And they're offering a cash reward as well as publication of entries on their website. For all the global warming extremists, now is their chance to put up or shutup.

If someone sends in an entry JunkScience will then have the ability to respond, hence open up a debate on the FACTS. They're forcing people to get away from the sensationalism and PROVE what they claim to scientists, not clueless reporters who can't respond to what they claim and just further sensationalize the sensationalized claims. The public can then decide whose evidence and response is more worthy. Even if JunkScience doesn't pay out, they will have a scarred image if someone sends them a worthy response. But they already know that won't happen. Because there is no scientific evidence to defend the claims.

...people think that you're saying there is no data, no evidence to support the idea that human activity is contributing to global warming.

If you are indeed trying to say that there is NO data and NO evidence to support the idea that human activity is contributing to global warming, I would also be extremely curious as to how you came to the conclusion that human activity "obviously" has an impact on the climate.

If that is indeed NOT what you are trying to say, and that you DO think that there IS data and evidence to support the idea that human activity is contributing to global warming, you seriously need to consider cutting out all the sweeping generalizations (cited in bold above) that do not accurately describe the subtle nuance of whatever your current position happens to be at the moment.

Here is your current position:

Originally Posted by JaJae

What I've said was there is no scientific evidence to prove their hypothesis wrong, in essence saying that there is no evidence to prove the media sensationalism. Without a doubt humans have an effect on climate. Nobody knows how strong that role is though and just about everything we hear in the media related to global warming is founded on sensationalism and not science.

There is no evidence to disprove the "media sensationalism" either.

More importantly, there is also no evidence to disprove the opinions of scientists who posit that there may be dire consequences associated with accelerated climate change. Why would you not want to err on the side of caution? Why do you think that ignoring the worst case scenario is the best course of action?

Please, take the time to consider my whole post and please address each point, or don't bother wasting both of our times. I'm getting a little tired of repeating the same questions and getting the same runaround. Help me understand your thinking. I'd rather have either a serious discussion on this subject or have no discussion at all. Thanks.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Obviously it has an impact. The question is does it have the impact people like Al Gore are claiming? If you think so it only costs $15 to make your case and win $100,000. Should be free money the way the media talks of global warming.

Why does it matter HOW MUCH it is affecting it? The FACT is we ARE affecting it. That should be good enough for everyone but because it's AL GORE, the Right has to fucking attack. It's pathetic and is NO different than the evolution deniers of the past.