100,000 US Dollars if you can prove humanity causes Global Warming!

[Snoopy]

Yep. Thats right. If you enter a contest and manage to win, you can gain 100,000 $, plus a T-shirt even if you don't win.

Go here for more details: http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

PS: This can also be used as a global warming debate thread, because the Ice Caps thread appears to have nothing to do with Global Warming Debate. Poll about your stance on Global Warming included.

[Rhinosaur]

Yep. Thats right. If you enter a contest and manage to win, you can gain 100,000 $, plus a T-shirt even if you don't win.

Go here for more details: http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

PS: This can also be used as a global warming debate thread, because the Ice Caps thread appears to have nothing to do with Global Warming Debate. Poll about your stance on Global Warming included.

LOL. First post in a bad thread.

Dig the rules:

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.

Vague concepts and terms you say? Because science is filled with vague, subjective, and nebulous terms and is judged by guys with a political bent and not empirical evidence.

JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.

Their discretion is so much more discerning and objective than hundreds and hundreds of scientists.

[Rapax]

Well and if they receive 10,000 entries, that already pays for the prize money if they so choose to even award it. A lovely publicity stunt.

[Rhinosaur]

Well and if they receive 10,000 entries, that already pays for the prize money if they so choose to even award it. A lovely publicity stunt.

And yet, not good science, or even honest.

Edit: btw, the Conan sig is pretty badass.

[Dunecat]

1) Is this not advertising?

2) Doesn't this belong in Atheneum? Were are debating science, right?

[Scorch]

2) Doesn't this belong in Atheneum? Were are debating science, right?

Yes, yes it does.

[Rhinosaur]

1) Is this not advertising?

In a way, I guess.

2) Doesn't this belong in Atheneum? Were are debating science, right?

Yes, if it belongs anywhere, although most global warming debates are held in the Pit to my knowledge.

[Simetrical]

Is global warming caused by humans? Probably, but reducing CO₂ isn't the only way to go about fixing it . . .

As for the challenge, I very distinctly recall a precedent in American court in which someone who made a similar claim (i.e., a claim that some commonly-accepted thing was false, and an offer to give money to anyone who could prove it) had someone prove it to them, get rejected, and then sue them for not following up on their original claim ― successfully. The judge ruled that if you say you'll give X dollars to anyone who proves Y, they only have to prove it enough to convince a reasonable person.

JunkScience.com is very careful, however, to say "in a scientific manner". While I agree that the balance of the evidence points to anthropogenic global warming, some people argue it's not scientific, in the sense of formulating hypotheses and then rigorously testing them in the physical world before declaring them correct. At any rate, I have not personally seen a model that made accurate predictions of the future in ways that required assumption of human causes. There are some that more or less accurately predicted several years of rising temperatures, like this:

But from looking at the data, it seems to me linear extrapolation with some random jags at appropriate intervals would have done as well. I would really like a list of some more precise and seemingly unlikely predictions that were proven right.

[DefenderofFreedom]

Is there an extension of that graph anywhere, Simetrical, that shows up to say.. 2007 for observed? Thanks.

[Simetrical]

I dunno, I was just hunting around for answers to my complaint above. That's what I found before I got bored and gave up.

[Gaidin]

Meet Dr. Dino 2.0 guys.

Let's call him Dr. Icecap.

[Averroës]

One should always examine the source.

Junkscience.com is run by Steve Milloy, a commentator on Fox News. Before that he worked for the ultra-libertarian Cato Institute.
Milloy first gained fame for attacking what he called "junk science" which was indicating a link between second-hand cigarette smoke and cancer. Interestingly, Milloy is a paid consultant for Philip Morris, the tobacco industry giant. He also manages a mutual fund with Tom Borelli, a former "manager of corporate scientific affairs" for... Philip Morris.

He is also the president of the Advancement of Sound Science Center, which although important-sounding is actually run out of his home. That organization was initially begun as a group called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), with money from... Philip Morris

And Milloy is also a paid consultant for Exxon. Exxon... hmmm. Nah, that couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest calling his credibility into question regarding any anthropogenic causes of global warming? Surely not.

If Otto Adolph Eichmann had funded an organization after WWII which claimed to debunk the "myth" of the Holocaust, I'd be a little skeptical of the organization instead of believing its clear partisan agenda.

[Ringeck]

Wasn't Milloy the inspiration for the main character of Thank You for Smoking?

[edit]I interpret "yes" on the poll as synonymous with "overwhelmingly likely". "Maybe" just doesn't cut it.

[Gary88]

Meet Dr. Dino 2.0 guys.

i was thinking exactly the same thing. no one will win, heck its junk science the most retarded illiterate and incorrect 'science' site in existence.

now for the next 20 years in global warming discussions some tit will pop up somewhere and say "well if you could prove it you would have won $100,000 by now"

He is also the president of the Advancement of Sound Science Center, which although important-sounding

indeed these groups are disgraceful. Exxon funds enough of them to fill a small dictionary. they are entirely funded by corporations but run by "concerned citizens" or something simillar and try to advance the companies views without appearing to be a part of that company. they always have names that strangely contradict their goals, the amount of "save the forrest" groups who strangely thought the best way to save americas forrests was for logging companies to be allowed to decimate them is staggering, strangely they get funding from...logging companies.

[eventhorizen]

Frankly this entire debate is becoming tedious.

There are huge swathes of mankind that frankly could not give a damn and have no interest in impacting their persuit of money and comfort.

There are some nations, such as the U.S.A, that will even stand in the way and block governmental and international efforts to demand that climate change is addressed, delaying action or debate across the lifespans of entire administrations.

It is these people that are going to screw up the planet directly, but all of us must accept some responsibility for buying into their perspective and helping to perpetuate the world we live in.

Too many people do not want to be "convinced" and even if the proof was irrefutable would still do all in their power to stand in the way.

Its just going to be a ongoing worldwide Katrina, in every sense, and we might as well accept it.

[Averroës]

We can at least try to mitigate some of the worst effects. Even if the absurdly unlikely is true, and humans are not responsible for at least some of the global warming, it should be remembered that humans haven't had to deal with global warming consequences such as are probably coming since long before we developed civilization. So does it really, in the end, matter what the cause is? We have to start thinking about consequences. The whole issue of anthropogenic or not is merely a red herring argument thrown up by those with the most at stake in not changing the status quo.

I agree that in all likelihood a lot of the world is in for a very bumpy ride, because of those who see short-term economic benefit as the only criteria and can't recognize that they will be just as injured economically in the long-term without some mitigation. I would definitely advise against buying beach front property as a long-term investment.

A large part of the world's population is already screwed, since anything we do now won't stop what's already been done and is working its way through the system. My worry is that we'll still be arguing about who caused it when the ocean acidity level makes life impossible for most of the plankton, thus destroying the marine food chain; or, even worse, we pollute and warm the oceans enough to inhibit blue-green algae, and thus endanger the source of 80% of our oxygen.

[Simetrical]

We can at least try to mitigate some of the worst effects. Even if the absurdly unlikely is true, and humans are not responsible for at least some of the global warming, it should be remembered that humans haven't had to deal with global warming consequences such as are probably coming since long before we developed civilization. So does it really, in the end, matter what the cause is? We have to start thinking about consequences. The whole issue of anthropogenic or not is merely a red herring argument thrown up by those with the most at stake in not changing the status quo.

Not at all. Whether it's anthropogenic or not has a pivotal bearing on how we handle the issue. If it's caused by human carbon dioxide emissions, one solution is to cut back on CO₂ emissions. If it's not, that would be a colossal waste of money. Furthermore, if it's not anthropogenic, and is (for instance) caused primarily by increased insolation, a perfectly adequate solution may be to just wait for the cause to reverse itself. That's obviously not useful in the case of warming caused by greenhouse gases, since we know the cause isn't going to reverse itself for decades to come.

I agree that in all likelihood a lot of the world is in for a very bumpy ride, because of those who see short-term economic benefit as the only criteria and can't recognize that they will be just as injured economically in the long-term without some mitigation.

The industrial revolution has consisted more or less entirely of ignoring long-term problems for the sake of short-term gain. We would not, I think, be where we are today if the inventors of coal-powered trains had to spend ten times as much to dig up the coal due to safety regulations, had to prove the safety of their device, filter it, etc. If the short-term gain is sufficient, then by the time the long-term problem comes around, you'll be rich enough to fix it.

A large part of the world's population is already screwed, since anything we do now won't stop what's already been done and is working its way through the system.

Not true. We can't possibly reverse or even stop warming by cutting CO₂ emissions, but there are other methods that would stop warming. For instance, it's known that if large quantities of sulfur or other particles are released into the upper atmosphere, global temperature will sharply decline for a few years. It's happened before many times, at every large volcanic eruption, and apparently (from my memory of a New Scientist article) it would be completely feasible for us to replicate that, costing only a few billion dollars and being ready for full deployment in less than ten years.

Of course there are side effects: acid rain, etc. Any solution to global warming, whatever its cause, will have some kind of cost, and we have to evaluate the costs against the benefit. The cost of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by the amounts required to make a substantial difference is very high, and the benefit is low, since warming will still proceed to possibly dangerous levels (even assuming anthropogenic warming ― any doubt about that cuts into the benefit side).

The dollar cost of launching particles into the upper atmosphere, on the other hand, is much lower, probably even if you add in the cost of acid rain (I don't think acid rain causes trillions of dollars in damages), and the benefit is greater (and, perhaps, more certain). The cost of doing nothing is roughly zero if global warming is going to reverse by itself in the near future (which almost certainly requires that it be non-anthropogenic), but extremely high if it's not.

All this is complicated, in certain cases, by the need for international agreement. Launching particles into the atmosphere will have a global effect and needs to be agreed to globally. Other schemes don't suffer from this problem.

My concern with the global warming debate is mainly that it seems there's a huge bias in favor of cutting carbon dioxide emissions, even if it will be ineffective and ludicrously expensive. This underscores my suspicion that the real driving force behind support for global warming is not genuine concern for property damage, but environmentalism for its own sake: the idea that human interference in nature is wrong ipso facto and must be reversed. That is, people seem to want to fix perceived human damage to nature, not just avert loss of life and money. That philosophy I refuse to accept in the slightest.

[Averroës]

Not at all. Whether it's anthropogenic or not has a pivotal bearing on how we handle the issue. If it's caused by human carbon dioxide emissions, one solution is to cut back on CO₂ emissions. If it's not, that would be a colossal waste of money. Furthermore, if it's not anthropogenic, and is (for instance) caused primarily by increased insolation, a perfectly adequate solution may be to just wait for the cause to reverse itself. That's obviously not useful in the case of warming caused by greenhouse gases, since we know the cause isn't going to reverse itself for decades to come.

The industrial revolution has consisted more or less entirely of ignoring long-term problems for the sake of short-term gain. We would not, I think, be where we are today if the inventors of coal-powered trains had to spend ten times as much to dig up the coal due to safety regulations, had to prove the safety of their device, filter it, etc. If the short-term gain is sufficient, then by the time the long-term problem comes around, you'll be rich enough to fix it.

Not true. We can't possibly reverse or even stop warming by cutting CO₂ emissions, but there are other methods that would stop warming. For instance, it's known that if large quantities of sulfur or other particles are released into the upper atmosphere, global temperature will sharply decline for a few years. It's happened before many times, at every large volcanic eruption, and apparently (from my memory of a New Scientist article) it would be completely feasible for us to replicate that, costing only a few billion dollars and being ready for full deployment in less than ten years.

Of course there are side effects: acid rain, etc. Any solution to global warming, whatever its cause, will have some kind of cost, and we have to evaluate the costs against the benefit. The cost of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by the amounts required to make a substantial difference is very high, and the benefit is low, since warming will still proceed to possibly dangerous levels (even assuming anthropogenic warming ― any doubt about that cuts into the benefit side).

The dollar cost of launching particles into the upper atmosphere, on the other hand, is much lower, probably even if you add in the cost of acid rain (I don't think acid rain causes trillions of dollars in damages), and the benefit is greater (and, perhaps, more certain). The cost of doing nothing is roughly zero if global warming is going to reverse by itself in the near future (which almost certainly requires that it be non-anthropogenic), but extremely high if it's not.

All this is complicated, in certain cases, by the need for international agreement. Launching particles into the atmosphere will have a global effect and needs to be agreed to globally. Other schemes don't suffer from this problem.

My concern with the global warming debate is mainly that it seems there's a huge bias in favor of cutting carbon dioxide emissions, even if it will be ineffective and ludicrously expensive. This underscores my suspicion that the real driving force behind support for global warming is not genuine concern for property damage, but environmentalism for its own sake: the idea that human interference in nature is wrong ipso facto and must be reversed. That is, people seem to want to fix perceived human damage to nature, not just avert loss of life and money. That philosophy I refuse to accept in the slightest.

Which is why I specifically used the word mitigation and not just cutting CO2 emissions. Thus, the above arguments are mostly against a point I didn't make.

The major problem with doing nothing or even just making endless argument in order to achieve the same effect is that what we do today won't work its way through the system for years, or even decades. The arguments against doing anything about it are intended solely to protect the bottom line. The arguments intended to delay doing anything about it are also intended solely to protect the bottom line.

As for the point about laissez-faire capitalism, which is what it really amounted to, business would be more profitable if companies didn't have to worry about worker safety or paying their employees a decent wage or not working children to death, and so on. Business would be more profitable if they could use slave labor. Follow your logic through to the conclusion. Profit is not an end which justifies any means.

[Gary88]

Not true. We can't possibly reverse or even stop warming by cutting CO2 emissions, but there are other methods that would stop warming. For instance, it's known that if large quantities of sulfur or other particles are released into the upper atmosphere, global temperature will sharply decline for a few years. It's happened before many times, at every large volcanic eruption, and apparently (from my memory of a New Scientist article) it would be completely feasible for us to replicate that, costing only a few billion dollars and being ready for full deployment in less than ten years.

as far as i'm aware (also from new scientist) the cooling effects of such an idea isn't the only issue, there are many health risks with such a plan, i don't have the relevant information to hand though.

[Jubal_Barca]

Um, what's the evidence on not cutting C02 Emissions being a good idea? Am I behind the times or summat?