$10,000 offered to prove CO2 effect

[Karlis]

BELIEVERS in the science of global warming, you now have the chance to spread the word and at the same time make yourself $10,000 richer. Australian (Victorian) locomotive engineman Peter Laux has pledged the prize in a statutory declaration witnessed by a police officer, and the challenge is open for 20 years .

Don't be put off, surely with the overwhelming scientific consensus we keep hearing about, the truth really is out there? Peter Laux just wants you to find it.

He says: "I have watched over the past couple of decades as the so-called left side of politics has been easily duped, co-opted and corralled by the Northern Hemisphere elite over the issue of the Greenhouse Effect or Global warming or Climate Change or Climate Chaos or whatever new slick PR advertising spin they need to use today."

AGW proponents constantly claim "overwhelming evidence" and yet incredibly never show any…

"For those who despise the source of their prosperous lives and wish to burden those who can least afford it with carbon taxes and cripple the development in the Third World, I offer you $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming."

Are you up to the challenge? Source

[Torgo]

Couldn't anybody win this (were it fair, which it isn't going to be) with an infrared absorption spectrum and some calculus?

[Karlis]

Couldn't anybody win this (were it fair, which it isn't going to be) with an infrared absorption spectrum and some calculus?

The challenge is out there. Go for it!

[ninjadude]

will never happen and the shyster knows this (Karlis should as well) because science is NOT about proving anything. Science provides the best explanation of phenomena given the current evidence. As such, Climate change is exactly that - overwhelmingly. If you want proof of things read your bible - it deals in black and white.

[Karlis]

will never happen and the shyster knows this (Karlis should as well) because science is NOT about proving anything. Science provides the best explanation of phenomena given the current evidence. As such, Climate change is exactly that - overwhelmingly. If you want proof of things read your bible - it deals in black and white.

Aw shucks. No proof, huh? Not irrefutable proof, you mean?

And why call the guy a "shyster"? Seems to me he's putting his money where his mouth is.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Karlis

[danielost]

Aw shucks. No proof, huh? Not irrefutable proof, you mean?

And why call the guy a "shyster"? Seems to me he's putting his money where his mouth is.

dont be so hard on the believers, they are putting money where their mouth is, others money but still money.

[aquatus1]

This challenge isn't about whether the CO2 is causing climate change.

The challenge is to prove that man-made CO2 is causing the climate change.

[Guest]

Who will decide on the outcome of this challenge.

If its the challenger then its clear his mind is already made up and no proof would satisfy him.

Would he accept a climate scientist as arbitor - I suspect not.

Bit of a publicity stunt really.

Br Cornelius

[oly]

"conclusive arguments based on empirical facts" aren't that open to interpretation.

[Guest]

"conclusive arguments based on empirical facts" aren't that open to interpretation.

Again you show your ignorance of complex multifaceted scientific issues.

Would a proof of the CO2 net forcing be adequate as that is relatively easy to demonstrate in a lab and then model to the atmosphere. Would that shift from lab to atmosphere be just to much of a stretch for the man - I suspect so. If you stack the cards before the game is played - then you always win.

Would the IPCC report be adequate proof ? I suspect he has already made up his mind that the bulk of the science is hockum.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 26, 2011 by Guest

[aquatus1]

Before we start telling people to prove something, perhaps it should be clarified what exactly needs to be proven.

[oly]

First post spells out challenge

[aquatus1]

And yet, there seems to be some disagreement nonetheless.

As I said, perhaps the specifics should be clarified.

[oly]

Maybe deliberate confusion to cause decoy distracting attention from certain crimes.

Certainly, argument for it is very confused. They even keep muddling "climate change" & "global warming"

Edited April 26, 2011 by oly

[Guest]

And yet, there seems to be some disagreement nonetheless.

As I said, perhaps the specifics should be clarified.

I suspect the man has left it a bit vague, or has he set reasonable limits on what HE would accept.

I wonder if he even knows what would constitute proof in a scientifically meaningful way.

Grandstanding.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Maybe deliberate confusion to cause decoy distracting attention from certain crimes.

Cryptic again - maybe you'd like to clarify who and what you are talking about to stop us guessing.

Br Cornelius

[oly]

Would the IPCC report be adequate proof ?

Br Cornelius

The fact that the challenge exists suggests that this man is saying that the ipcc report is unscientific rubbish

[oly]

Cryptic again - maybe you'd like to clarify who and what you are talking about to stop us guessing.

Br Cornelius

What I mean is that the confusion surrounding the subject is fishy. It's a tactic of criminals to cause confusion.

[aquatus1]

All of which leads back to the same thing: the need for clarification.

[oly]

All of which leads back to the same thing: the need for clarification.

"is burning fossil fuels causing global warming" - conclusive argument based on empirical facts.

[aquatus1]

That is all the clarification you feel is needed? You believe that fulfilling this would merit the prize?

[oly]

That's what it says...

[Mattshark]

Certainly, argument for it is very confused. They even keep muddling "climate change" & "global warming"

No, that is wrong. It has always been climate change in science, global warming is the general effect it has on the planet and is more commonly used by the media.

[Guest]

Maybe deliberate confusion to cause decoy distracting attention from certain crimes.

Certainly, argument for it is very confused. They even keep muddling "climate change" & "global warming"

Again you show your profound ignorance of the issues - it is both - though they are not the same.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

So oly would you accept the evidence that the net radiative balance has shifted due to the greenhouse gas CO2 as proof ?

That is really simple to demonstrate from a basic physics point of view - and from that all other facts follow.

Br Cornelius