Win $10k if You Can Prove Climate Change Wrong

800px-ShipTracks_MODIS_2005may11If you’re as annoyed with climate change deniers as physics professor, Dr. Christopher Keating, you can finally tell them to put up or shut up.

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.

Keating is even willing to accept unoriginal scientific evidence.

‘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,’ Keating wrote. ‘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.’

Some critics have claimed that Keating has a strong bias against not giving his own money away and for being a climate change advocate. He refutes this by explaining that he “is stuck with having to be honest about it.”

‘If I am a fraud, then I will be held up as an example of how climate scientists everywhere are frauds.’

Read the rest of the article here.

63 Comments on "Win $10k if You Can Prove Climate Change Wrong"

  1. Oh yeah, right. As if that socialist commie Keating would actually cede the point. You know he won’t. He’s a known climate change liar!

  2. Craig Bickford | Jun 26, 2014 at 3:13 pm |

    So I guess this will exclude the individuals like my self who feel that the claims being made about how much of a contribution humans are making to climate change historically are hyped and inaccurate, and whether this contribution has been the subject of scientific and political manipulation (for corporate and political profit and control) are not eligible for entry?

    • neurolux72 | Jun 27, 2014 at 1:59 pm |

      “….individuals like my self who FEEL that the claims being made….”

      He wants scientific evidence, not feelings. Either put up or shut up.

      • Craig Bickford | Jun 28, 2014 at 5:29 am |

        So, you are wrong and here is why. Intuition and feelings are a way to inform people that there is something going on in reality that doesn’t jive with objective reality as we understand it. I adhere to this concept as part of the integrated Trivium methodology, and the practice of identifying reality with non-contradictory observation. To say there is no role for the emotions and or feelings in inducing a search for deeper understanding or the quest for knowledge is a little short sighted, but I’ll give you benefit of the doubt because I’m sure I’m being sorted into a box of consciousness or an ideological bent that isn’t accurate in regard to my current positions or my particular stance or understanding. I also do understand what he is asking for, but merely pointing out that he is marginalizing the debate in some way possibly towards those who fit into his model, effectively creating or catering to those who will use a neglected aspect fallacy potentially in supporting their data. Data massaging does exist, it’s done every day in funded labs and research facilities and office around the world. It isn’t a myth or a conspiracy, people have done investigative reports and written books on it, national science academies admit it is a real phenomenon, etc. But of course when it buts up against someones favorite pet ideology on the climate or government policies that they believe in’ well then all of the sudden that backstory disappears for some who dwell in the subjective world. Are you one of those?

        Nice try though.

        • Intuition and feeling are useful towards finding a hypothesis to test,
          but they get in the way when you want objective measurements. We live in
          an objective reality whether we like it or not. A wise man once said
          that you know something is real if it’s still there when you cease to
          believe it. Data massaging happens when a scientist lets his feelings
          get in the way of objective measurements.

          Your response contradicts itself.

          Weak try though.

      • Craig Bickford | Jun 28, 2014 at 5:40 am |

        There is a cult of climate change that is tied to collectivist policy that is somewhat hidden away or occulted. Deny it all you want, some of us are not going to pretend it isn’t’ there. We’re not all going to be corralled into some technocracy introduced, managed and centralized hellhole of socialism because some policy maker has convinced the masses of unthinking dolts that we have to ‘save the planet’, that’s garbage for sure. Now I am not saying there is no pollution, so lets not use any false dilemma fallacies here, it’s happening. What I’m questioning is the real outcome and the desired policy outcome that our psychopathic leaders want for us, as their animals.They want to pass on the secondary costs to you for things that big corporate interests are instigating and causing, and in the process deny cause and effect (blaming you or shuffling the responsibility onto you), and at the same time fulfill their Fabian dreams of controlling society. Lots of researchers are looking at this problem now, and seeing it for what it is (the larger issue of elite control, with environmental reaction being one facet of introducing tighter control).

        You can be on the side or rationality or on the side of the technocracy, which seeks to fix all problems through centralized control, controlled opposition of extremism (like eco radicalization, socialism etc). The choice is yours, but once you start being a slave to their propaganda and information and not checking your premises, applying critical thinking to what the authority is telling you, you are lost. And that’s exactly what they want. if they wanted people to think critically they would teach you how to do this is school, instead of suppressing these innate features of our brains. They wouldn’t be teaching kids how to count with overly complex and silly methods that include boxes and telling them that it’s OK if 1+1=5, as long as the group reaches that conclusion together in Common Core. This is the legacy of Kant and the other false philosophical sophists who were co-opted into this corruption of reality, and we are the by product and the left overs. Do you want to be a robot or do you want to think for your self? That’s a legitimate question I am asking.

        http://www.tragedyandhope.com

        • Jin The Ninja | Jun 28, 2014 at 8:42 am |

          yes craig, totally agree. it’s a commie conspiracy! hidden marxists in power want us to abandon amerika and live in teepees, barefoot, with peppermint dr. bronners and patchouli oil (in the forest). probably miscegenation! no more ice cream, just tofutti! no more beef, only tempeh! we’ll have to share our food. wtf!? this is america! we hate parasite welfare queens, who want us to ‘share the wealth!’ this is america, get a fucking job at your nearest local corporate wasteland! we love oil and black fridays at walwart, and didn’t you know, we’re the best country in the world because of our freedom. we hate the middle east but we love jesus (the white, non-semitic, aryan one). i can’t help but drive my truck the whole 5 blocks to work because fuckyeah manly power! i’m not concedin’ nothin’ to those red-pinko bastards, not my meat and potatoes, and not my 6000sqft in the suburbs! it’s the devil is asking to trade fossil fuels for our SOULS. it’s the end times!

        • “There is a cult of climate change that is tied to collectivist policy that is somewhat hidden away or occulted. Deny it all you want, some of us are not going to pretend it isn’t’ there. We’re not all going to be corralled into some technocracy introduced, managed and centralized hellhole of socialism because some policy maker has convinced the masses of unthinking dolts that we have to ‘save the planet’, that’s garbage for sure. Now I am not saying there is no pollution, so lets not use any false dilemma fallacies here, it’s happening. What I’m questioning is the real outcome and the desired policy outcome that our psychopathic leaders want for us, as their animals.They want to pass on the
          secondary costs to you for things that big corporate interests are instigating and causing, and in the process deny cause and effect (blaming you or shuffling the responsibility onto you), and at the same
          time fulfill their Fabian dreams of controlling society. Lots of researchers are looking at this problem now, and seeing it for what it is (the larger issue of elite control, with environmental reaction being
          one facet of introducing tighter control).” Nailed it here Craig, Bravo!

  3. It’s bad when “scientists” start using the Overton Window, right?

    • Simon Valentine | Jun 26, 2014 at 4:47 pm |

      there is no accept

      there is ergonomic ecological economics egregiously ignored

      • there is marklar in your marklar.

        my guess is most marklars will marklar your marklar.

        • Simon Valentine | Jun 26, 2014 at 6:09 pm |

          wehrl ert muh wurk dim der lik “urhm mebe hims duh ding”

          “you mean it is possible to algebraically extrapolate to any opinion given an absolute value in a way that is neither orthodox nor idiosyncratic nor sapient or sentient so much as it is associated with absolute value?”

          “yuh”

          “people aren’t very educated about it, are they?”

          *sadface*

          i got 99 99s
          and Maxwell’s equations aint one (to clone the universe)

          • But the ass brayed: Yea-Yuh

          • Simon Valentine | Jun 26, 2014 at 9:25 pm |

            *sigh*
            “they do like the sliced bread”, said Brian Greene
            so i “floored” my stronghold crusader economy
            and bought gas molecules from “Moses the Amenophile”

    • Buy highest-grade quality Strains available on the market today.
      At moderate prices and we also do home deliveries of our stuffs such as,
      Strains available now OG Kush, bubba kush, master kush,purple
      kush,ultra kush, white widow,skunk,marijuna,.Red magic,Kush herbal
      incense,Mr.nice guy.Cloud 10,Space herbal incense,Black mamba,Spike
      max,

      Peyote

      *Green Crack

      *sour Diesel .

      *Grand Daddy Purple

      *Sensi Star

      *Afghan Kush

      *Northern Lights

      *Lemon drop

      *Purple Kush
      Shelf*purple-urkle
      og kush
      white widow
      blueberry yum yum
      mango kush
      jack herer
      purple haze
      afghan desiel
      sour desiel Khat
      Temazepam
      Ketamine
      LSD
      Ecstasy
      Amphetamines
      Methamphetamine
      Heroin
      Cocaine
      Cannabis and many more
      contact us at………….(862) 243-5220
      email willfranky200@gmail.com,/.

  4. Opposite Day | Jun 26, 2014 at 4:07 pm |

    You need to spend more than $10k just for equipment and travel. It cost over $10k just for one piece of equipment in my lab. This guy is an absolute moron.

  5. Echar Lailoken | Jun 26, 2014 at 5:00 pm |

    Even if it’s proven wrong, some will just invent another conspiracy theory to enable their denial.

    • Buy highest-grade quality Strains available on the market today.
      At moderate prices and we also do home deliveries of our stuffs such as,
      Strains available now OG Kush, bubba kush, master kush,purple
      kush,ultra kush, white widow,skunk,marijuna,.Red magic,Kush herbal
      incense,Mr.nice guy.Cloud 10,Space herbal incense,Black mamba,Spike
      max,

      Peyote

      *Green Crack

      *sour Diesel .

      *Grand Daddy Purple

      *Sensi Star

      *Afghan Kush

      *Northern Lights

      *Lemon drop

      *Purple Kush
      Shelf*purple-urkle
      og kush
      white widow
      blueberry yum yum
      mango kush
      jack herer
      purple haze
      afghan desiel
      sour desiel Khat
      Temazepam
      Ketamine
      LSD
      Ecstasy
      Amphetamines
      Methamphetamine
      Heroin
      Cocaine
      Cannabis and many more
      contact us at………….(862) 243-5220
      email willfranky200@gmail.com,;/.

  6. 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.

    It’s not whether we are having an impact, it’s to what degree. Randall Carlson explains this point in the following video. Without clarification the challenge is meaningless. Is he demanding literally that ZERO effect must be proven. This is obviously a ridiculous headline grabbing effort if so. Anyone with a vague awareness of the urban heat island effect alone would see through this ruse a mile away.

    http://youtu.be/PbihGWTT2IY?t=6m10s

    Also the individual issuing the challenge is also the judge and jury in this case, kinda seems ridiculous on its face when coupled with the vague nature of the challenge. How about this, a winner take all debate and an educated audience determines who makes the better case.

    Also please stop using the term “denier” when related to scientists who legitimately dissent with the edicts of the IPCC.

    • Jason Lewis | Jun 26, 2014 at 5:45 pm |

      You mean the 2.9% of the sum total of scientists that ‘legitimately’ dissent as compared to the 97.1% that believe in man made global warming based on decades of study? I see. Again, as I asked in a previous post Camron, if 9 doctors told you that you had a condition that requires treatment but one doctor told you that you were healthy, would you go on believing you were healthy? You don’t like the word denier. Ok, in the face of a near 100% consensus on this issue, how about we call you anti science?

  7. Lookinfor Buford | Jun 26, 2014 at 5:41 pm |

    Do any of you realize that we, as humans, with all our technology, do not even have a viable statistical methodology to make predictions such as these.

    Do any of you wonder why weathermen will only venture a guess at a 10-day forecast, yet GW advocates attempt 25 year, even 100 year predictions?

    Are you all aware of the fact that regression analysis, which is the methodology used by both those entities, is incapable of producing even remotely accurate models for these time spans?

    These are facts.

    Can any of you who support the Gore, Bloomberg, and now Paulson fraudsters point me to one scientific experiment that conclusively shows that carbon sequestration will actually reverse the warming trend (which has obviously been occurring since the last ice age)?

    Do any of you realize that these are simply bankers creating new markets? Carbon markets.

    Do any of you care that cap-and-trade is just another way to get in your pockets, and will not do one bit of good for the environment?

    Seriously people..

    In the big picture, we’ve been warming, as expected for 30 million years. Which approach makes more sense?

    1. Trust these guys who say we “must act now!” and jump on the bandwagon.

    2. 5-10 more years of study and observation. Objective debate over the issue. Funding for research to scientifically answer the concerns above.

    Someone explain how 10 years could be catastrophic to our health here. I really need a laugh.

    To this Dude, show me your proof that what we’re doing will be catastrophic, and the proof that we have the means to actually turn it around, and if disproving those two proofs qualifies for 10K, I’m in.

  8. terrasodium | Jun 26, 2014 at 10:37 pm |

    Did professor Keating get a 10,000 dollar grant from the bureaucrates or did he make it on a hot insider stock tip to “go green”, either way proving a negative (“isn’t”)with methodological dogmatism to fix problems caused by methodological dogmatism (science as technology)would be a entirely new chapter in human historical self deceptions, do scientists live mortgage free when they are permited their respective Ph.D.

  9. I don’t need a scientist to tell me or dispute the fact that the climate is changing. I’ve observed it on our farm and in the wilderness since the 1980s. Our climate is chaotic around the world–nothing is as it should be anymore. Did we cause it? In the end, does it matter? Instead of arguing over the cause, we should be preparing for the effects.

    • Buy highest-grade quality Strains available on the market today.
      At moderate prices and we also do home deliveries of our stuffs such as,
      Strains available now OG Kush, bubba kush, master kush,purple
      kush,ultra kush, white widow,skunk,marijuna,.Red magic,Kush herbal
      incense,Mr.nice guy.Cloud 10,Space herbal incense,Black mamba,Spike
      max,

      Peyote

      *Green Crack

      *sour Diesel .

      *Grand Daddy Purple

      *Sensi Star

      *Afghan Kush

      *Northern Lights

      *Lemon drop

      *Purple Kush
      Shelf*purple-urkle
      og kush
      white widow
      blueberry yum yum
      mango kush
      jack herer
      purple haze
      afghan desiel
      sour desiel Khat
      Temazepam
      Ketamine
      LSD
      Ecstasy
      Amphetamines
      Methamphetamine
      Heroin
      Cocaine
      Cannabis and many more
      contact us at………….(862) 243-5220
      email willfranky200@gmail.com

  10. Translation: I Jason Lewis (anonymous human?) did not bother to read the article because it comes from a website who houses information that does not conform to my preexisting paradigm. Therefore I will ignore it, I will ignore it glibly and sarcastically but I will definitely not read it nor address any of the scientific information presented therein as it relates to this issue. I will then presume that the “debate is over”, when in fact there are thousands of climate scientists across a wide array of disciplines who do not conform to the “consensus” racketeering schemes of the IPCC. I will then finish up my response with an ad hominem attack, projecting on to you my own inadequate fears as I am apparently scientifically illiterate and must therefore bolster my non arguments with more smarmy mouthfuls of sarcasm.

    That’s what I’m getting. So you seriously still believe the 97% myth? Who exactly are the 97% you are pointing to?

    Science does not work on consensus, it isn’t majority rule and the “97%” statistic that is still brought up has been completely rebuked as nothing but a Michael Mann like manipulation of statistics.

    “We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah”
    meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by
    John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has
    been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology
    used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart,
    badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of
    “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than
    letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many
    authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here).
    The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters
    beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors
    opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review
    by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as
    demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

    • > I Jason Lewis (anonymous human?) did not bother to read the article because it comes from a website who houses information that does not conform to my preexisting paradigm. Therefore I will ignore it,

      You mean like you automatically rejecting all info from Snopes?

      • So since you brought it up, Snopes still ignores Building 7. Do you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR6Kbg5jJ8

        • I’ve never ignored it. It was obviously pulled by the U.S. government and not destroyed by any planes. Do you accept the fact that the land Cliven Bundy claims is not the site of any proposed solar farm, but instead overlaps BLM fracking leases?

          • I’m going to stay on topic here. The 10k challenge is bogus and I’ve explained why snopes is shit. Regarding the Bundy post, many a devil in the details but the overarching theme is you are all peasants to politicians as far as they are concerned.

          • > and I’ve explained why snopes is shit.

            Yes, because it’s a website which houses information that does not conform to your preexisting paradigm.

          • So you don’t mind that they ignore this massive contradiction? You are ok with them embodying cognitive dissonance and essentially being a propaganda organ? Why do you suddenly have no interest in discussing climate change and this ridiculous challenge?

          • > So you don’t mind that they ignore this massive contradiction?

            I do, but not enough to reflexively write off everything they say. Plus, almost everyone I know ignores the contradiction, and I don’t feel like living my life as a constant argument.

            > You are ok with them embodying cognitive dissonance and essentially being a propaganda organ?

            I disagree that ignoring or even being wrong about Building 7 makes one nothing more than a propagandist. And everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. I disagree with how Snopes deals with that issue, but nobody’s perfect.

            > Why do you suddenly have no interest in discussing climate change and this ridiculous challenge?

            What’s sudden about it? Here in southern California I’ve personally witnessed the change of climate over the years, personally witnessed the huge amount of pollution our consumerist finance capitalist society vomits up, and the basic climate science makes sense to me. Acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is my litmus test for sanity, knowledge, and honesty, and I don’t debate intransigent deniers.

          • I would argue that ignoring the truth about 9/11 is more environmentally devastating than presuming that industrial pollution is a byproduct of “climate change.” For example, look at the effects of depleted uranium on the innocent people of Iraq and the imperial mercenaries better known as Sol-Diers. Their DNA is ravaged, their offspring mutated. But leaving that topic for another thread and returning to this ridiculous 10k “challenge” and the real facts versus the alarmist propagandizing; let’s qualify your beliefs if you don’t mind. What do you see as the strongest evidence for believing in the IPCC’s pronouncements of imminent doom due to a slight enhancement of a trace gas?

          • First off, it’s not just CO2, but methane, which is about 20 times worse as a greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide and fluorinated (as in fluoride) gases.

            Second, we (humans, not just Americans) emit more than 30 billion metric tons of CO2 every year. That’s a lot. Check out the “Asian Brown Cloud.” Regarding methane, the global beef industry alone emits about 80 million metric tons annually; human activities emit over 200 million metric tons. Every year. You can’t tell me all that doesn’t have any effect. Especially considering…

            Third, deforestation and the poisoning/acidification of the oceans. About 18 million acres of forest are destroyed (Big Agriculture) every year–20 football fields every minute. That’s a lot of lost carbon recapture and oxygen creation. Add to that the poisoning of the oceans, killing plankton (30% lower in the North Pacific than they were in the 80s), and you can see why the oxygen content of the atmosphere has dropped a third from what it was about 10,000 years ago, and dropped as much as 50% in the cities.

            That’s is where I really disagree with the Big Oil owned MSM’s lax and biased coverage of climate change, as I think deforestation and oceanic pollution are the main causes. So I totally agree with those who say cap and trade is bullshit. It won’t fix the problem. I think environmental regulations need to be much, much, much stronger than they are.

            Plus, I think carcinogenic and xenohormone pollution are an even bigger threat than climate change.

            This isn’t a simplistic ‘CO2 = global warming’ situation. Our circumstances are far more dire.

          • To be clear. Industrial pollution and “climate change” or AGW are not the same thing. To presume that we need to curb CO2 emissions in order to stop pollution is ludicrous and has nothing to do with the toxicity of modern munchausen political strategies (eugenics)(please read Craig Bickfords posts about to see how this is tied into the false climate alarmism agenda.)

            So please stop lumping them all together in an illogical soup of meaninglessness.

            Are circumstances are dire, but not because of the false narratives you are invoking.

            I agree we are under attack from xenoestrogens, gmo, pesticides, hydrofluorosilicic acid, etc and that they are linked to global depopulation agendas which are cloaked under the auspices of malthusian/darwinian discredited survival of the fittest propaganda. Which is the greater menace? Being chemically castrated to help a clandestine elite maintain dominance over the entire planet or the amount of CO2 (plant food) that we release through industrial activity? The neo-luddite romanticization of primal cultures is also a red flag for the mind control Craig expertly described above.

            If you want more information I’m happy to provide it, but you have to promise to actually read it and comment on it, not some meandering non sequitorial screed about how it can’t be true before you have even bothered to do the research.

            Also I need to see citations on every claim you’ve made as I’ve no idea where you are pulling it from nor how it applies to whatever it is you are trying to say.

            I cannot discern your point at all in other words.

            Regarding the 30 gigatons human fossil fuel burning is sought to release into the atmosphere. Are you aware that at least 2-300 gigatons of carbon are NATURALLY processed through the carbon cycle each year? Did you realize that enhanced CO2 leads to longer growing seasons, (more food), agriculture being extended further north of the Equator, and that forests are rebounding much faster than projected in this enhanced CO2 rich environment? Do you realize that we have in the last 200 years thousands of samplings of the atmosphere showing up to 500 ppm of CO2 present?

            Please do your homework, I’ve linked you to a video of Randall Carlson documenting all of these claims. We have a bibliography of all the peer reviewed data it is derived from here. http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/climate-change-a-catastrophists-perspective

            Take one day to see what else is out there instead of running full on into a menagerie of disconnected conjecture and regurgitation of IPCC talking points and platitudes about the environment please.

          • You can’t discern my point because I don’t weigh facts based upon appeal to motive fallacies.

            You commit more logical fallacies than you accuse others of. I don’t believe you are an honest debater, and therefore will not engage with you or your misinformation.

          • No, it’s more to do with you not having one. Believe whatever you want, who needs facts when you have iron clad opinions right. I notice you had nothing to say to any of the points I raised by the way. How’s that for calling you on your bullshit.

          • You’re psychologically projecting.

  11. Buy highest-grade quality Strains available on the market today.
    At moderate prices and we also do home deliveries of our stuffs such as,
    Strains available now OG Kush, bubba kush, master kush,purple
    kush,ultra kush, white widow,skunk,marijuna,.Red magic,Kush herbal
    incense,Mr.nice guy.Cloud 10,Space herbal incense,Black mamba,Spike
    max,

    Peyote

    *Green Crack

    *sour Diesel .

    *Grand Daddy Purple

    *Sensi Star

    *Afghan Kush

    *Northern Lights

    *Lemon drop

    *Purple Kush
    Shelf*purple-urkle
    og kush
    white widow
    blueberry yum yum
    mango kush
    jack herer
    purple haze
    afghan desiel
    sour desiel Khat
    Temazepam
    Ketamine
    LSD
    Ecstasy
    Amphetamines
    Methamphetamine
    Heroin
    Cocaine
    Cannabis and many more
    contact us at………….(862) 243-5220
    email willfranky200@gmail.com,/.;

  12. So why won’t you read the article? Just curious? And how do you expect me to answer a string of questions if you are unwilling to do the slightest bit of research to hear different perspectives? “The mark of an educated mind is to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily agreeing.” Please entertain new thoughts and check the methodology of the mythical “97%” “consensus” for yourself. It is you after all who brought it up, wouldn’t you want to know if you were spreading misinformation or not?

  13. @disqus_NwDLxZqdeA:disqus put up or shut up you silly cunt 🙂 You want to debate. Let’s have a go then. Attack the man and avoid the science is all I see from the lot of you silly bitches.

    • Oh no a bunch of childish fanboys want to internet gang up on me, gasp what shall I do. Just point out the obvious, you schmucks don’t know what you are talking about and resort to sewing circle jerks as you can’t admit when you are just plain incorrect or misinformed. How is that “97%” mythology holding up for you? Ah you don’t know because you can’t be bothered to read an article. Silly bitches.

    • Echar Lailoken | Jul 3, 2014 at 4:12 pm |

      Impressive, you had to dust that one off. Nailed it!

  14. So if I don’t cop to your belief system, a belief system admittedly impervious to new ideas, then I’m an “intransigent contrarian.” That’s a nice little tautological feedback loop you’ve got going there. It’s pointless to debate if you wall yourself off from any information you judge on it’s face without actually chewing over. Is this discussion about AGW, “climate change” or pollution? What exactly are you defending?

    • Jason Lewis | Jul 3, 2014 at 6:02 pm |

      Did I admit I was impervious to new ideas? I’ve mentioned that i’m open to new ideas and I’ve even conceded in a couple of posts that I’m open to the idea that the 97% is inaccurate without even having read the articles you link to. I’m willing to concede it because most stats are padded some way or another. The actual percentage I’m sure, however is still a majority opinion about man made global warming. I’m not defending a thing. You’re defending and I’m in agreement….with the science that says human activities and yes that includes pollution has an adverse affect on the environment and ecosystems and is a cause for global warming. Yes, there’s been cycles of climate change in the past but let’s not fool ourselves, in a closed system like we have with an atmosphere, toxins spewed consistently over time will have an effect. I’m curious why you feel a need to defend fossil fuel industries in lieu of more efficient solar and wind power technologies. Are you a misinformation agent for them? What’s in it for you? Upending the economy as you say, is hardly the case here. Communities and individuals are self powering their homes and businesses more and more. My far right leaning father in law just installed solar panels on his home and he’s ecstatic over it. With companies like Exxon Mobil not paying a dime in taxes while reaping massive profits while destroying the environment with oil spills and fracking and more, I don’t think the average joe cares if these companies suffer. You’re swimming upstream and living in the past. The future is renewables and ecologically conscious technologies.

    • Jason Lewis | Jul 3, 2014 at 6:03 pm |

      you forgot to say ad hominem

  15. The myth of the 97% climate change consensus

    Posted on May 30, 2014 by Guest Blogger

    Image Credit – jpopasia.com

    What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by
    President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree
    about global warming?

    Claims continue to be made that “97% of scientists agree that climate
    change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State
    John Kerry told graduating Boston College students. It’s what President
    Obama said in his State of the Union address and a recent tweet.

    There’s just one problem – aside from the fact that this assertion is
    being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing
    down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. The claim is
    completely bogus.
    As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate
    scientist Roy Spencer make clear in this article, the papers used to
    create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally
    flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it
    represent anything remotely approaching 97%.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/

  16. Again, you are repeating propaganda and expecting it to be taken at face value. I disagree with your presumptions and have presented numerous points which undercut your professed faith and belief in the edicts of the IPCC religious doctrine. Do your homework and let’s go point by point. Point one. What do you actually believe regarding “climate change”? What reasoning supports your belief exactly, and yes of course, provide your sources. I don’t want to beat around the proverbial bush.

  17. BruceMoran | Aug 6, 2014 at 8:07 pm |

    .

Comments are closed.