Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

[hellokeith]

Link

$125,000 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.

Any P&N takers? Surely $15 is worth a slam dunk $125k right?

If someone here at P&N is interested but is low on cash, I'll front the entry fee and split the proceeds 50/50. PM me for more details.

I do find it curious that no one won the last prize of $100k. Should I have some doubts perhaps that MMGW is not as "concensus" as P&N'ers proclaim?

 

[StageLeft]

On the face of it--and believe me, I'm very skeptical of a lot of the GW claims--it seems silly we cannot prove it, but this issue is too big to chop down into a simple document somewhere; it's not an issue easily proven/disproven. We can more realistically prove that eating chocolate makes us fat or drinking kills brain cells, but something as encompassing an issue like this is akin to trying to prove or disprove that religion has a net positive on the planet. It definitely DOES or DOES NOT have a net positive on the planet, but we cannot possibly prove it, can we?

 

[BrownTown]

Lets be honest, if someone could conclusively prove that global warming was real and man made (or the opposite for that matter), they would instantly have offers from every major college and research and offers well into the 6 figures. Not to mention they might win a Nobel prize etc. Basically you would be set for life and cruise on that accomplishment without ever having to work another day in your life. So a 125,000$ prize really is meaningless compared to the fame and $$$ that would be coming your way anyways. Unfortunately of course climate modeling and such are very inexact, so you will liekly never be able to prove anything 100% given the inherent uncertainties.

 

[Vette73]

Also THEY are the ones that make the rules and the rules even say they can change them and interpet them as they see fit.
In other words it is a scam just to get free press and $15.


How about this. prove that global warming is fake and man has not altered tempatures at all. i will give you a million dollars. Only $1 application fee.









small print. -> I make the rules and can/will change them to fit my requirments. I keep all money and laugh at you.

 

[blackangst1]

I love it: put up or shut up. Unfortunately most people dont have the resources, other than cherry picked internet articles, to really delve into it. All they have is a blabbering mouth and I have a feeling that wont win it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Also THEY are the ones that make the rules and the rules even say they can change them and interpet them as they see fit.
In other words it is a scam just to get free press and $15.


How about this. prove that global warming is fake and man has not altered tempatures at all. i will give you a million dollars. Only $1 application fee.









small print. -> I make the rules and can/will change them to fit my requirments. I keep all money and laugh at you.

Prove a negative? Wow youre a brave man!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Also THEY are the ones that make the rules and the rules even say they can change them and interpet them as they see fit.
In other words it is a scam just to get free press and $15.

Yes. They also stipulate that all "Evidence" must be New and your own Research. They are clearly Deniers and as we all have seen Deniers can't be convinced of anything.

It would be like Creationists offering a Reward for someone to Prove Evolution.

 

[piasabird]

The point is not whether we are causing global warming. The relative point of discussion should be whether any changes we make will have an impact one way or another on the environment. Can we really prove changes we make will have an effecto on the global environment?

 

[yllus]

Ignorant crap like this waters down the reasonable doubts people have about climate change. I really wish there was a part of the political spectrum that didn't have its share of loudmouthed idiots.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Also THEY are the ones that make the rules and the rules even say they can change them and interpet them as they see fit.
In other words it is a scam just to get free press and $15.

Yes. They also stipulate that all "Evidence" must be New and your own Research. They are clearly Deniers and as we all have seen Deniers can't be convinced of anything.

It would be like Creationists offering a Reward for someone to Prove Evolution.

Bingo, you guys nailed. This is a fool's errand that cannot be "won".

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Quoted from that page:

# 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.
# JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries.

Yeah...

Solid guarantees, undoubtedly coming from some neocon think-tank.

Move along, nothing to see here!

 

[CycloWizard]

The "hypotheses," as stated, are not falsifiable.

 

[Train]

I think its possible, but you would have to have a completely sealed/controlled test environment to run the expiriements in. Something similar to a bio-dome. Only problem is you would have to control sunlight as well, meaning it would have to be done indoors with a light source as close to the spectrum of the sun as possible (dont think anyone has ever built an indoor biodome before)

The test equipment alone for these expiriments would cost well over the $125k award.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Link

$125,000 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.

Any P&N takers? Surely $15 is worth a slam dunk $125k right?

If someone here at P&N is interested but is low on cash, I'll front the entry fee and split the proceeds 50/50. PM me for more details.

I do find it curious that no one won the last prize of $100k. Should I have some doubts perhaps that MMGW is not as "concensus" as P&N'ers proclaim?

ULTIMATE EVOLUTION CHALLENGE: PROVE EVOLUTION EXISTS AND WIN $250,000!!!!!

Link

What? Nobody's won it since 1990? I guess evolution is wrong then!
Hellokeith, are you being paid by someone to make stupid anti global warming posts on here? It's all I ever see you do.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Link

$125,000 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.

Any P&N takers? Surely $15 is worth a slam dunk $125k right?

If someone here at P&N is interested but is low on cash, I'll front the entry fee and split the proceeds 50/50. PM me for more details.

I do find it curious that no one won the last prize of $100k. Should I have some doubts perhaps that MMGW is not as "concensus" as P&N'ers proclaim?

Nah, we're still waiting for you to enter to win the 125K 's that will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that something other than humans are causing harmful global warming.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Link

$125,000 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.

Any P&N takers? Surely $15 is worth a slam dunk $125k right?

If someone here at P&N is interested but is low on cash, I'll front the entry fee and split the proceeds 50/50. PM me for more details.

I do find it curious that no one won the last prize of $100k. Should I have some doubts perhaps that MMGW is not as "concensus" as P&N'ers proclaim?

ULTIMATE EVOLUTION CHALLENGE: PROVE EVOLUTION EXISTS AND WIN $250,000!!!!!

Link

What? Nobody's won it since 1990? I guess evolution is wrong then!
Hellokeith, are you being paid by someone to make stupid anti global warming posts on here? It's all I ever see you do.

In fact, there are all sorts of these kind of "challenges" in various fields, and almost all of them are absolute junk. The reason is that the challenge is always created and judged by a biased source interested in NOT paying out the money, so serious scientists don't bother. I don't know about global warming, but I can tell you that in cryptography, this kind of challenge is laughed at and dismissed by every serious cryptographer. It's a way to convince non-experts that their statements are correct without having to prove them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I love it: put up or shut up. Unfortunately most people dont have the resources, other than cherry picked internet articles, to really delve into it. All they have is a blabbering mouth and I have a feeling that wont win it.

And just what do YOU bring to the table?

 

[Hacp]

This sounds like some scam the guys over at the Intelligent Design camp would do.

 

[CycloWizard]

I don't understand the problem here. As I already stated, these 'hypotheses' are not falsifiable. Thus, they are not valid scientific hypotheses. Thus, they cannot be disproven. Ever. This is easily observable from the extremely vague language in the first, where words such as "discernibly, significantly and predictably" are entered as the key components.

 

[First]

There's an inherent logical fallacy in how the reasoning is stated. Bunk offer.

Besides, visit your local college and ask any ES PhD about how much evidence there is for man-made global warming. It's unanimous in terms of support, that's not debated by serious people. What is debated is the degree to which man-made global warming causes harm, as in significant harm, or not.