Has anyone here taken this challange? Ultimate GW Challange?

Question

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

"$500,000 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."

Answer 1

as u seem to be an expert about gb

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

can u help me?

Answer 2

Al Gore already won that wager!

Answer 3

A fairly obvious con from "junkscience" with numerous outs in the rules and from practical point of view they "he really" couldn't afford to pay 1/10 of that even if it was proved.

And I have seen this same question posted here several times in the last few weeks so A for persistance.

Answer 4

Um, wouldn't that experiment require a collection of identical earths. Some of them being the control group, and some of them being the planets that you inject CO2 into over 250 years and observing the planets to see which ones warm up.

Would you live on one of the control group planets or the doomed planets?

Wouldn't that cost more than 500K?

Answer 5

I have no interest in accepting the challenge. I have never been a proponent of global warming. I present information to anyone else on this page who may be interested in the challenge.

Today, every storm and tornado and hurricane and tsunami and flood and drought and crop failure is blamed upon global warming. It's become the new god that prehistory man used to offer a sacrifice to because it was angry.

Humans find it difficult to accept the force of nature especially when one of their million dollar home which was built on a pile of mud slides into the river following a rainstorm. A person died in Chicago last summer when the temp hit 95 degrees? Well the blame is on global warming, not on the failure of the government to provide the person with an air conditioner.

Natural disasters are going to happen if you choose to live your life on a planet. It's only when you build your house 100 feet from the ocean that you suddenly need to find someone to blame for a rise in the water levels.

I just read that someone has blamed global warming for the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota. If only it would be that easy to blame Minnesota pro sports team losses on global warming.

I found this info in a blog:Natural disasters before global warming..

Japan, 1181: famine (100,000 dead)

Holland, 1228: sea flood (100,000 dead)

Europe and Asia, 1346-52: Bubonic plague or “black

death” (one third of the European population dead plus millions in Asia

and North Africa for a total of 25 million)

Bengal, India, 1769: famine (10 million dead)

India, 1775: Tsunami (60,000 dead)

Northamerica, 1775-82: Smallpox (130,000 dead)

Caribbeans, 1780: Hurricane (22,000 dead)

Japan, 1826: Tsunami (27,000 dead)

Ireland, 1845: famine (one million dead)

India, 1864: Cyclone (70,000 dead)

India, 1875-78: Famine (10 million dead)

Bangladesh, 1876: Cyclone (200,000 dead)

China, 1876-78: Drought (9 million dead)

China, 1881: Typhoon (300,000 dead)

Indonesia, 1883: Tsunami (36,000 dead)

Huayan Kou, China, 1887: Yang-tse Kiang flooding (one

million dead)

Sanriku, Japan, 1896: Tsunami (27,000 dead)

Galveston, 1900: Hurricane (8,000 dead)

China, 1907: famine (20 million dead)

Hebei, China, 1920-21: famine (500,000 dead)

Ukraine, 1921: Famine (5 million dead)

China, 1928: Famine (3 million dead)

Florida, USA, 1928: Hurricane (1800 dead)

China, 1931: Flooding (3.7 million dead)

Ukraine and Russia, 1932: Famine (5 million dead)

China, 1936: Famine (5 million dead)

New York, USA, 1938: Rains (600 dead)

Amazingly, from 1940 to the 1970's, temperature levels decreased. I wonder what the automobiles were using for fuel in those days?

I find it odd that persons who want to talk about global warming have no desire to talk about glacial Ice Ages or intergallacial periods. They dismiss the mini ice ages of the 1700s. They never seem to discuss periods of falling temperatures within the global warming era. Minnesota just went through one of the longest winters and coolest springs in history. Yet these issues are not on the global warming minds and they do not make any headlines in the corporate controlled media where any sign of atmospheric or oceanic cooling trends that do get reported are very quickly buried so that if a person does not happen to read them on the day they come out, odds of finding them again are next to impossible. So why the intentional bias? What is it that global warming proponents fear about any evidence which contradicts it? Wouldn't one expect an issue as important as this to freely present both sides of the issue? What political pressures caused Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, one of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's three new special envoys on climate change, also headed up the 1987 U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development to demand a prompt end to global warming discussions? Why did she state that to question global warming was "immoral"?

What is behind the movement to discredit and even decertify climatologists or meteorologists who show any skepticism towards global warming to the degree of not allowing the publication of studies which do not support global warming? Why did the British government attempt to suppress a BBC program titled "The Global Warming Swindle"?

Who can forget Al Gore's charts showing the comparison of CO2 levels with global temperature? And yet, how many people became aware later that Gore's graph was not an accurate display? The temperature increases occured 800 years BEFORE the CO2 levels increased in proportion. It was clearly a planned public deception. Why? Free discussion and fact-based scientific evidence has been shut out of the global warming debate. Why?

Professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen presented evidence that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940 along with evidence that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing and Alpine glaciers have been advancing since about 1970. His article was then attacked by environmentalists.

It's the old addage, if you repeat false information long enough, people will eventually believe it. So the global warming has now turned into a cult movement where any contradictory facts are branded as lies and the witch hunt is on to attack those who speak against it.

What incentives would create such a self-deception of the topic? What else? MONEY. Government funding of climate research is now a multi-billion dollar industry. BUT only for those who support the global warming premise. The funding and the grants will cease if the global warming theory is proven untrue or if your group presents any conflicting evidence. Global warming research has become a one-sided coin.

The global warming cult has spread it's fear mongering tactics as exemplified in The Canadian magazine which stated in a recent article that 3/4 of the world's population will die in the next 4 years because of global warming.

Political candidates have no choice but to run on the issue. Vote for them and they will solve the global warming crisis.

I'm going to conclude here with a chart showing that CO2 levels do not in any way match Earth temperatures. The graph is about halfway down the page.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/c...

I could go on and on but I'm bored and I'm sure other readers are too. The points are that the global warming issue is fataly corrupted by government leaders and cult groups. Evidence which contradicts global warming or it's relationship to CO2 is intentionally and systematically being censured and anyone speaking out against global warming is unfairly criticized and condemned like a heretic in the 1500s who believed in a heliocentric solar system. Like an automoton, they quickly disregard any claims that Earth temps are guided by ocean temps which have been proven not to be warming. In fact, England has measured it's ocean temps and have indicated a pattern suggesting that we are in fact headed for another mini ice age within the next 50 years.

Persons today who are 'convinced' that global warming is real and is caused by CO2 emissions are an example of how easily a population can be brainwashed to believe just about anything.

Personally, I could really care less what anyone wants to believe as long as they don't start shoving it down my throat and make me join their cult group. If belief that the Earth is in a catastrophic state because of global warming and CO2 gives your life some sort of purpose that's fine. In time all things pass and this shall too.

Answer 6

Why would they?  It's futile.

The "junkscience" (apt name) website has the sole right of determining when someone has proved this.  No matter what the proof, they'll just not accept it.  It's exactly like arguing an old Earth with someone who claims it's only 6000 years old.  Whatever proof you offer, they'll just say "God faked that."

Truly a no win proposition.

Of course this has already been proved to the satisfaction of the scientific community.  EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.