The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

JaJae · 08-07-2007, 10:48 AM

There have been a lot of scientists literally begging Al Gore to a debate on the issues of global warming. One group has spent over $500,000 advertising such a debate in an attempt to get Al Gore to bite. Al Gore is seen as the definitive source for global warming, and they feel they can discredit him in a short debate quickly and easily and thus change the entire public mantra surrounding global warming.

So far the list of people to challenge Al Gore include, Dennis Avery, Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S. National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist), Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) among others.

Al Gore has refused to do a debate with any of them to set them straight. Now the website junkscience.com is getting in on the mix. They've decided Al Gore isn't going to bite and ruin all credibility for those who swear by man made global warming. So instead they have issued The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.

JunkScience.com's Ultimate Global Warming Challenge
The website features a globe with Al Gore standing right on top. The banner reads "If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here's your opportunity to win an easy US $100,000!" Note the word "catastrophic" and the clear dig at Al Gore. Essentially if you believe the crap in his "documentary" is true or if you feel you can prove even half the crap he spit out, nows your chance to make some cash.

Here's the challenge:

$100,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:
UGWC Hypothesis 1

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2

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.

It'll be interesting to see what they get. They have a $15 entrance fee to submit a response to weed out the spam. And they are going to post the entries on their website. Does anyone think someone will be able to scientifically prove either hypothesis? I don't.

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2007, 11:03 AM

What a great challenge...100k is quite a bit.

Nobody will claim it

We should keep up with the posts and post them here.

JaJae · 08-07-2007, 01:35 PM

Attack Ad:

YouTube Video

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2007, 01:54 PM

Why would you call it an attack ad?

nbiggershaft · 08-07-2007, 02:34 PM

Looked pretty cool until hypothesis 2. It'd be a shame if 1 was definitively proved or disproved and because it can't be proved harmful or helpful the science doesn't matter. Why would it be the job of someone studying man's effect on climate change to have a crystal ball of how it would effect everything?

WickedLou9 · 08-07-2007, 02:45 PM

We will never be able to prove that man is causing global warming. never. In this sort of science, there is likely and unlikely. You can't prove it as a fact.
This is nothing more than a political stunt. It's no different than all of the people who were clamering on about Evolution being "just a theory" and that there was no proof.
How much do you want to bet that ExxonMobil funded that 500,000 in advertising and put up the 100,000 bounty.

So far 8 people have challeneged Al Gore. Excuse me for saying, but i'm not impressed. One of them is the author of fictional books about dinosaurs coming back to life. Another is an economist... not an expert on climate. A british politician, another non-expert..
Blah.
It's not like any of you would ever change your minds anyway... not short of the ice caps instantly vaporizing and the earth being covered in water and Jesus himself coming down and saying " You did this by burning too much fossil fuels". Even then I bet you would be like... "Psshh. That dude wasn't Jesus, there's no proof"

JaJae · 08-07-2007, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

This is nothing more than a political stunt. It's no different than all of the people who were clamering on about Evolution being "just a theory" and that there was no proof.

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.

WickedLou9 · 08-07-2007, 02:57 PM

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 imperial data. Man made global warming is not.

the difference is that Al gore is backed up by 10's of thousands of scientists all around the world. Nothing he says was fasle. He does only give the worst case possible scenerio in his movie and the results from the warming that he talks about are not necesarily the most likely, but the premise and the science underlying it all are solid. The fact that anyone still debates that man has some role in climate change is just silly. Then to attempt to disprove the theories by setting up a straw man arguement and claiming victory when there are no takers is equally silly. Why don't they issue a challenge to prove that atoms are infact made up of a dense nucleus and a cloud of electrons orbiting it. Then offer 100,000 dollars to anyone that can prove it. When we fail, the person making the offer then says that atoms aren't what the scientists say, look no one would accept my offer!
It's crap.

Instead of engaging in this sort of stunt, any self respecing scientist would actually try and disprove what the other people are saying, rather than to set up some PR stunt in an attempt to discredit them. Why doesn't lord so and so go do his own study if he doesn't agree with the vast majority of global climate scintists. Woudln't that be the logical thing to do?

JaJae · 08-07-2007, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

the difference is that Al gore is backed up by 10's of thousands of scientists all around the world. Nothing he says was fasle.

The IPCC has come under more attacks recently and there are also many scientists who disagree with the conclusions drawn. The number of scientists who actually believe the rhetoric is smaller than is portrayed. And A LOT of what Al Gore said was completely and utterly false, outdated and wrong.

Scrum · 08-07-2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

the difference is that Al gore is backed up by 10's of thousands of scientists all around the world. Nothing he says was fasle. He does only give the worst case possible scenerio in his movie and the results from the warming that he talks about are not necesarily the most likely, but the premise and the science underlying it all are solid. The fact that anyone still debates that man has some role in climate change is just silly. Then to attempt to disprove the theories by setting up a straw man arguement and claiming victory when there are no takers is equally silly. Why don't they issue a challenge to prove that atoms are infact made up of a dense nucleus and a cloud of electrons orbiting it. Then offer 100,000 dollars to anyone that can prove it. When we fail, the person making the offer then says that atoms aren't what the scientists say, look no one would accept my offer!
It's crap.

Instead of engaging in this sort of stunt, any self respecing scientist would actually try and disprove what the other people are saying, rather than to set up some PR stunt in an attempt to discredit them. Why doesn't lord so and so go do his own study if he doesn't agree with the vast majority of global climate scintists. Woudln't that be the logical thing to do?

Agreed.

This is just another pathetic publicity stunt.

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2007, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

the difference is that Al gore is backed up by 10's of thousands of scientists all around the world. Nothing he says was fasle. He does only give the worst case possible scenerio in his movie and the results from the warming that he talks about are not necesarily the most likely, but the premise and the science underlying it all are solid. The fact that anyone still debates that man has some role in climate change is just silly. Then to attempt to disprove the theories by setting up a straw man arguement and claiming victory when there are no takers is equally silly. Why don't they issue a challenge to prove that atoms are infact made up of a dense nucleus and a cloud of electrons orbiting it. Then offer 100,000 dollars to anyone that can prove it. When we fail, the person making the offer then says that atoms aren't what the scientists say, look no one would accept my offer!
It's crap.

Instead of engaging in this sort of stunt, any self respecing scientist would actually try and disprove what the other people are saying, rather than to set up some PR stunt in an attempt to discredit them. Why doesn't lord so and so go do his own study if he doesn't agree with the vast majority of global climate scintists. Woudln't that be the logical thing to do?

People are quickly changing their minds as more and more realize they were suckered in by a publicity stunt.

JaJae · 08-07-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

People are quickly changing their minds as more and more realize they were suckered in by a publicity stunt.

A leading writer from the Economist. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/39463a34-40a...0779fd2ac.html

WickedLou9 · 08-07-2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

People are quickly changing their minds as more and more realize they were suckered in by a publicity stunt.

Since when?

WickedLou9 · 08-07-2007, 03:49 PM

ScienceDaily: Researchers Work To Track North American Climate Change

Date:August 7, 2007
There is no question now that the climate is changing on a global scale," says Takle, an Iowa State University professor of geological and atmospheric sciences and agronomy. "The evidence is so overwhelming."

do a news search for global warming or Climate Change and tell me that people are changing thier minds.. it seems quite the contrary to me.

WickedLou9 · 08-07-2007, 04:00 PM

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com
An article that talks about the history of the climate change deniers.
It's not suprising where the money comes from to fund these "think tanks" who keep coming up with new ways of trying to contradict the climate change science. yeah it comes from big oil and industry.

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Since when?

Almost every news arcticle I've been seeing now on the major media outlets regarding climate change is an article now questioning whether it's happening or not. Either that or it's still in question on what's actually causing it. To continue to blame humans is getting old and busted. Global warming will fall flat on its face like global cooling did.

People aren't convinced like they were a yr ago.

WickedLou9 · 08-07-2007, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Almost every news arcticle I've been seeing now on the major media outlets regarding climate change is an article now questioning whether it's happening or not. Either that or it's still in question on what's actually causing it. To continue to blame humans is getting old and busted. Global warming will fall flat on its face like global cooling did.

People aren't convinced like they were a yr ago.

I think you live in another world than the rest of us. Either that or you are only reading Faux News articles.

Scrum · 08-07-2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com
An article that talks about the history of the climate change deniers.
It's not suprising where the money comes from to fund these "think tanks" who keep coming up with new ways of trying to contradict the climate change science. yeah it comes from big oil and industry.

Nice link.

Get ready for the "Just because the Oil companies paid for the science, doesn't make it false" defense.

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think you live in another world than the rest of us. Either that or you are only reading Faux News articles.

While it's not recent, it's a good one!

Remember Worries About Global Cooling? - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com