Site Offers $100,000 Reward in YouTube Video for Provin

[amicus]

Keyword search: $100,000 global warming challenge

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-07-2007/0004640841&EDATE=

UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com Offers $100,000 Reward in YouTube Video for Proving Catastrophic Manmade Climate Change





WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

'Can you save Al Gore?'

"...is the title of a YouTube video released today announcing the $100,000
Ultimate Global Warming Challenge (UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com).

According to the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge rules, the first
person to prove -- in a scientific manner and according to contest rules
that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic climate change will win $100,000 -- and, perhaps most importantly, save Al Gore from his self-made, inconvenient iceberg -- as depicted on the YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0.

"Here's the opportunity for global warming alarmists to flaunt all the
conclusive evidence that they say exists," said Steve Milloy, founder and publisher of JunkScience.com, the sponsor of the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.

Here's how the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge will work. Contestants will pay a non-refundable $15 entry fee to submit their "proof" of catastrophic manmade climate change. Submitted proofs will be posted for public review and comment on the web site.

Entries must be submitted by December 1, 2008. The winner, if any, will be determined by JunkScience.com and will be announced on or about February 1, 2009. The contest is void where prohibited. Complete rules are posted at UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com.

"Al Gore says the debate on global warming is 'over' and the UN global warming panel places at 90 percent the probability that humans are causing harmful climate change through greenhouse gas emissions," said Milloy

"If such claims are true and it's such a no-brainer that manmade carbon
dioxide emissions are wreaking havoc on the climate," Milloy observed,
"Then here's a chance for any scientist in the alleged "consensus" on
climate change to pick up an easy $100,000."

"There's no excuse for not entering," Milloy offered, "since the
winner, if any, could always donate the prize money to his favorite
charity."

Contestants will also get a free DemandDebate.com T-shirt that says,
"I'm more worried about the intellectual climate."

"So even if contestants can't prove that humans are causing global
warming, their $15 will not have been for nothing. They'll get a great
looking T-shirt warning of the real climate threat," added Milloy...."




SOURCE UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com; JunkScience.com


~~~

This is not posted as a ‘flame’ thread, nor even to stir the pot.

There is a general left wing conspiracy, loosely connected, between the radical environmentalists, Ozone Layer advocates,, Global warming theorist’s, animal rights folks and many more, that emanates from a pro social democracy, ‘progressive populist’ movement world wide.

This post is not an offer to debate the left wing radicals who want a pristine wilderness, a cessation of industrial enterprise and a mandatory zero growth population. There is no debate possible with these, ‘true believers’.

This post is mainly for those of you, constantly bombarded by the left wing intellectuals, but who would like to see some valid and creditable proof offered that policies which, if enacted, will diminish and destroy the quality of life for the citizens of North America and the world at large.

I wish the originators had joined with others and offered a ten million dollar X prize in this contest, but such is life.

Amicus…

 

[JamesSD]

I'll pay someone $100,000 to scientifically prove the theory of gravity...

I mean, Einstein couldn't do it, and neither could Newton or Hawking.

Since it's not scientifically proven, it must be false, right? So therefore, gravity must not exist.

 

[amicus]

I'll pay someone $100,000 to scientifically prove the theory of gravity...

I mean, Einstein couldn't do it, and neither could Newton or Hawking.

Since it's not scientifically proven, it must be false, right? So therefore, gravity must not exist.

~~~
JamesSD...I am presenting one side of this argument concerning global warming. Although I have picked up a few and sundry others along the way, it has pretty much been amicus against the world, especially here.

I moved to Los Angeles, in the late 1950's and witnessed first hand the smog in that city. I am also aware of acid rain, created by industry and the downwind effects of a city on rural environment. Man does indeed affect the ecology by his acts.

I don't need to show my sympathy with some aspects of industrialization as I assume these things are known by all who discuss the subject.

The building of a modern civilization is and always has been a learning process, trial and error and we have made some large errors.

My answer to all these problems in general is a more strict enforcement of private property rules on all property, federal, state, locally owned by government agencies and private property.

In that way, without further restrictive legislation, rules, laws and mandates, we preserve the integrity of the environment and of property owners.

Although you may not accept my conclusions, I suggest the evidence is open and many fold that a particular social and political mindset has moved the nation, for over a hundred years, towards a more controlled and restricted society. That the global warming push, is just the latest effort to control the freedom of property owners, business, corporations and industry, especially the energy industry, in general.

There is vast evidence of climate change with research going back hundreds of thousands of years that confirm climate change in may ways.

It may even be, to some miniscule amount, that the combined and cumulative effects of industrialized society have added or subtracted from the normative climate change that occurs naturally. But if so the degree is undetectable and unmeasurable.

To let a political agenda forbid construction of new energy and refining plants for an entire generation; to prohibit manned spaceflight for that same generation, it has been 30 years since a man set foot on the moon, is to me, a travesty almost beyond imagination.

I have listened to the arguments presented and refuted time and time again concerning 'what if?' just what if you and all the environmentalists and ecologists are wrong, totally and dead wrong? All the restrictions and changes and the current energy crisis, were brought about by environmental activism.

For a faulty purpose and a sinister one. The anti industrial revolution, the anti business, anti capitalism drive of cafe' socialists left over the the left bank intellectuals of the 30's.

Socialism is dead, collectivism and statism are dead. Should there not be a viable alternative that preserves human freedom?

I think so.

Amicus...

 

[starrkers]

I'll pay someone $100,000 to scientifically prove the theory of gravity...

I mean, Einstein couldn't do it, and neither could Newton or Hawking.

Since it's not scientifically proven, it must be false, right? So therefore, gravity must not exist.

Gravity's a myth. The earth sucks.

 

[SeaCat]

~~~
JamesSD...I am presenting one side of this argument concerning global warming. Although I have picked up a few and sundry others along the way, it has pretty much been amicus against the world, especially here.

I moved to Los Angeles, in the late 1950's and witnessed first hand the smog in that city. I am also aware of acid rain, created by industry and the downwind effects of a city on rural environment. Man does indeed affect the ecology by his acts.

I don't need to show my sympathy with some aspects of industrialization as I assume these things are known by all who discuss the subject.

The building of a modern civilization is and always has been a learning process, trial and error and we have made some large errors.

My answer to all these problems in general is a more strict enforcement of private property rules on all property, federal, state, locally owned by government agencies and private property.

In that way, without further restrictive legislation, rules, laws and mandates, we preserve the integrity of the environment and of property owners.

Although you may not accept my conclusions, I suggest the evidence is open and many fold that a particular social and political mindset has moved the nation, for over a hundred years, towards a more controlled and restricted society. That the global warming push, is just the latest effort to control the freedom of property owners, business, corporations and industry, especially the energy industry, in general.

There is vast evidence of climate change with research going back hundreds of thousands of years that confirm climate change in may ways.

It may even be, to some miniscule amount, that the combined and cumulative effects of industrialized society have added or subtracted from the normative climate change that occurs naturally. But if so the degree is undetectable and unmeasurable.

To let a political agenda forbid construction of new energy and refining plants for an entire generation; to prohibit manned spaceflight for that same generation, it has been 30 years since a man set foot on the moon, is to me, a travesty almost beyond imagination.

I have listened to the arguments presented and refuted time and time again concerning 'what if?' just what if you and all the environmentalists and ecologists are wrong, totally and dead wrong? All the restrictions and changes and the current energy crisis, were brought about by environmental activism.

For a faulty purpose and a sinister one. The anti industrial revolution, the anti business, anti capitalism drive of cafe' socialists left over the the left bank intellectuals of the 30's.

Socialism is dead, collectivism and statism are dead. Should there not be a viable alternative that preserves human freedom?

I think so.

Amicus...

I have bookmarked this site and will watch it with interest. There is much about Global Warming I don't understand, and I know this. Maybe I'll be able to learn a bit about it from this.

Cat

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm with JamesSD on this. The existence of this prize, unclaimed, can really only tell us two things: the limits of what the judges will accept as proof, and the limits of what proof can be presented. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that someone else is offering a prize to anyone who can disprove global warming. I'm fairly certain that proofs of the existence and non-existence of God and evolution both have (or have had) ransoms on their heads.

Ultimately, what that tells us is that the things that are most hotly debated tend not to be susceptible to absolute and immediate proof (i.e., I can not point to a manifestation thereof indisputably taking place right now and for no other reason). This is surely not a surprise to anyone? Humans can be silly, but usually you don't get into a lather debating things that people can present concrete and immediate proof for. The really awkward bit about global warming is that should it be truly occurring, even at catastrophic levels, it will almost certainly never be possible to be absolutely sure how much of a role human activity plays in it, because the number of other potential variables is so large. We'll be stuck guessing even if we're under water at the time.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Adding to what others have said, science doesn't "prove" things. Instead it offers falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested in various ways. When a hypothesis has stood up to many such tests it becomes accepted as truth, and perhaps axiomatic (I'm rusty on the terms for that last part.)

Unrelated to the thread subject: Beware of unfalsifiable hypotheses! Beware of postmodernists who contend for reasons that boil down to pure politics that scientific knowledge is not representative of any form of fundamental truth!

 

[amicus]

I suppose with a belief in a supernatural being, who existence provides no evidence of that existence; to which a rational man concludes: 'therefore it does not exist', would puncture your faith?

Always the skeptic on human knowledge, thas okay, I accept that.

Didn't reply to this for that reason however, saw you were back, and on television at this moment is a program I referred you to from memory, concerning the necessity of the moon to enable life on earth.

PBS, NOVA, Origins: Earth Is Born, originally broadcast, 09/28/04, so it has been around a while.

regards...

amicus...

 

[JamesSD]

Unrelated to the thread subject: Beware of unfalsifiable hypotheses! Beware of postmodernists who contend for reasons that boil down to pure politics that scientific knowledge is not representative of any form of fundamental truth!

Well put, although I still think "Postmodern" is at best a silly term.

 

[lisa123414]

I looked through this site (www.junkscience.com). To me it reads more like The Onion, or maybe the sadly defunct “Weekly World News.” An interesting link also claims that it is better for the ecology to drive to the store rather than to walk.

“Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.”

Here is the link, in case anyone else finds this difficult to believe:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

My point – I am an engineer and a scientist. Some of these issues are so involved it is an easy job to make the numbers say whatever you wish. All that is required is an agenda, or an oversimplification of the system being studied. And so my advice, is to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt.

I have lost count of the number of times I have told the powers that be where I work that “The Emperor has no clothes.” They always listen, but sometimes they bury my information because the short term gain outweighs the long term cost.

Currently, my city is considering building an ethanol plant, at great cost to our environment, and to relations with our neighbor, Portsmouth, VA. There is another thread about whether ethanol production for the use as fuel is smart or stupid. I have read many studies and opinions, and I don’t think that any of them have come close to considering even half of the issue.

Sometimes you just have to go with your gut feeling and hope that you are right.

 

[amicus]

Liza1234 proclaiming that you are an engineer and a scientist and then posting a 'green site' reference, does not provide an objective basis for your conclusions.

I am not going to return to the research, but state approximations and if you disagree you can offer to disprove me.

Before and during the industrial revolution, before the advent of internal combustion engines, a majority of all people living had to grow their own food and supply the rest of the society. As I recall it either six or eight of of ten involved in agricultural pursuits.

And it was horsepower, actual horses and oxen, pulling ploughs and accomplishing work. I imagine they produced also, a rather large amount of manure, or 'methane', if you insist.

Again, without researching, I recall that now, less than two percent of the population is employed in the field of agriculture and they supply 300 million people, with as much exported to a hungry world.

All because of industrialization and modernization and corporate agriculture and investment.

What you and the greenies seem to want is a vegetarian, no meat diet, a complete change in human habits as they are now. And you know you would have to impose such a system by force, as people would not willingly migrate back to the past.

I greatly respect those who put forth the effort to become scientists and engineers, not an easy task. But in my years of interviewing such 'experts', I realized early on, that in social matters, they are somewhat myopic and tend to accept and believe that which they do not have time to study.

And many, if not most, are paid quite well, and feel guilt about their wealth and tend, like Hollywood Liberals, to deny the nature of reality and live in a dream Utopian Marxist world where 'from each, to each', remains an unspoken mantra.

I don't beg, but I would ask you to consider, that whatever grand plan you have to right the wrongs of society, that you keep in mind that the essential basic human value, of individual personal freedom must be protected or we have nothing.

amicus...

 

[lisa123414]

Amicus -
This site is not my reference and it is most certainly not a green site, it is the site hosting the challenge which you post.

I recommend, when you decide to post a reference, you ought to take a look around. Read and find out about whom you are quoting.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=lisa123414]Amicus -
This site is not my reference and it is most certainly not a green site, it is the site hosting the challenge which you post.

I recommend, when you decide to post a reference, you ought to take a look around. Read and find out about whom you are quoting.[/QUOTE]


~~~

"...Here is the link, in case anyone else finds this difficult to believe:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle2195538.ece..."

~~~


Unless I am mistaken, that is the link you posted and it is self identified as a 'green' link?

amicus

 

[lisa123414]

That was the link to the story about walking to the store. I found that story on the junkscience page.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Unrelated to the thread subject: Beware of unfalsifiable hypotheses!

Amen to that. I particularly loved the comments from some of the staff of the now defunct PEAR project (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research - keen to prove paranormal phenomena, without noticable success) indicating that they'd found strong evidence of special sorts of human emotional/parapsychological energy that were specifically expressive in circumstances freed from the presence of negative counter-energies produced by hostile thought patterns and constrained control settings.

I'm sorry - did you just say "It's much easier to prove paranormal phenomena when there are no test controls and no skeptical persons present?"

Behold the fruit of twenty-eight patient years of research. How the boundaries of ignorance shrink back before them.