The $10,000 Global Warming Challenge!

The $10,000 Global Warming alarmist Challenge!

I have heard global warming alarmists make all sorts of statements about how the science supports their claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the alarmists to prove their claims. And, I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I am announcing the start of the $10,000 Global Warming Alarmist Challenge. The rules are easy:

1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global warming is currently occurring;

2. There is no entry fee;

3. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.

That’s it! I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn’t you like to have a spare $10,000? After all, the alarmists all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn’t even have to be original. If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $10,000 is yours!

If someone can provide a proof that I can’t refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a cheque.

But, I am sure I will never have to because it can’t be proven. There is no scientific evidence for global warming and no one can prove otherwise.

Any takers?


  1. The scientific method means a Scientific hypothesis about a data set that is tested against real data from that data set.
  2. By current warming I mean a rise in surface temperature data over the previous 15 years (So no “the ocean eat my heat” responses please).
  3. I am the final judge and my response to anyone who enters is this will be: “there is currently no warming, no one predicted this and so I will not be paying out any money”.


The reason I’ve put out this challenge is to show that any numpty can put up a challenge asking for evidence. But unlike all the other numpties (like this) asking for evidence to disprove man-made global warming – for which there is no funding at all, I’m asking for evidence that proves man-made global warming something which has received 100s of millions if not billions and is supposedly “settled science”.


It has righly been pointed out that Peter Laux issued a very similar challenge which is on Dennis Rancourt’s Climate Guy blog.

The comments are worth reading.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to The $10,000 Global Warming Challenge!

  1. Scotty says: ”1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global warming is currently occurring”;

    Nobody can prove that, for billions of dollars, because there is no such a thing as ”GLOBAL” warming or ”GLOBAL” cooling. Nobody can prove about past ”GLOBAL” warmings; because they were never GLOBAL, Laws of physics doesn’t permit that – but that’s the best Skeptic’s weapon.

    People on the street think: ”if it did happen, if it CAN happen, better be safe than sorry” – media, politicians follow
    Warmist built their lie / castle using the Skeptic’s lies as foundation. Holocene, Eocene, Crapocene were NEVER global events. Unfortunately, the ”Skeptics” are busy, busy inventing new phony past ”GLOBAL” warmings every week -> Warmist are laughing all the way to the bank, thanks to the Skeptic’s misleading religion. (general before going to battle, checks his own weapons first, on the other hand – Skeptics are shooting themselves in the foot, with a machine-gun… Welcome to the cyrcus

    • Do you think I would offer money if there was the slightest chance I would have to pay out.

      It’s in response to this idiotic blog post:

    • Vconomics says:

      He also says: “I am the final judge and my response to anyone who enters is this will be: “there is currently no warming, no one predicted this and so I will not be paying out any money”.

      Doesn’t matter if you prove it.

      • In order to prove it, you would need to find some evidence that I am not currently aware of. And unless new evidence can be found – you cannot prove it. Indeed, you’d need multiple strands of evidence.

        The point of the article was to parody the comedy prizes offered to “disprove” – something that has never been proven. I’m not seriously expecting anyone to attempt the impossible, but there are a lot of idiots who think they can prove something by posting a link to Jokepedia – so I felt I should make it clear that I didn’t want people to waste a lot of their time on something I know is unachievable.

        • deminthon says:

          “some evidence that I am not currently aware of”

          That would include all of the evidence, since you’re aware of none of it. But you’re simply lying … you would never pay out no matter what. And no one can prove anything to you because you’re an ignorant imbecile.

          • It sounds to me as if you are one of these people who take their view of sceptics from the PR websites of Russian Oil funded greenspin organisations.

            So please, before commenting again, read what we actually think:
            The Sceptic view

            And then read what kinds of people are sceptics:
            No place for name calling in debate

            Then when you know that the vast majority of sceptics have an least one science degree in a climate relevant area like physics and chemistry (and about half have a post graduate qualification), then perhaps you can tell me what level of physics and chemistry qualification you have that makes you think you can label me as ignorant.

          • Daphne Wallace says:

            The Ocean is losing its ability to “clean”. It is covered with a film made up of pollutants plus oil, so water vapor cannot be sent up to make clouds. Rain normally cleans’ the atmosphere as well- of which there is a scarcity(of rain) in certain parts of U.S. right now, much less other Countries. This is slowly bringing down the ability to feed the plants on the ocean surface, that contribute greatly to lower oxygen levels; the rivers are polluted that run into the ocean. The cycle of “renewing” our water with rain water is less and less effective. C02 is not removed.

          • Whilst I share some of your concerns particularly about nitrogen run-off into waterways, as far as I can see, much of the warming we saw from 1970-2000 coincided with a period in which clean air acts were passed to restrict smog (which cut out sunlight globally). So, it is quite conceivable that this cleaning of the air actually caused much of the warming in the late 20th century.

  2. Guys, you want to learn something that is correct, here:
    The troposphere is earth’s radiator/ as on your car radiator. You don’t put truck’s radiator into a car, or car’s radiator in truck, because it wouldn’t cool enough. b] when you are in bed and is cold – you shrink in a fetus position – when you get hot, you spread arms and legs, for bigger exposure, you don’t succeed much, but it helps. Earth’s troposphere can double in size / exposer, in an instant, if warmed that much. If it gets warmer, or colder, for any reason – troposphere (O&N) expands / shrinks as a piano accordion. c] imagine if you have a radiator on your car, to instantly / accordingly expand when the engine is hot and to shrink when is cold; as a piano accordion radiator; but only imagine, because if you install that kind of radiator- you will attract too much attention and cause traffic hazard. Air does expand & shrink in change of temp, instantly – how many of the warmist &skeptics would believe the truth…?

    WELL, THE TROPOSPHERE IS LIKE PIANO ACCORDION (O2&N2) ARE EXPANDING / SHRINKING ALL THE TIME AS NECESSARY. Reason: sun eclipse, CO2, CH4 or the stupid sunspots cannot change the overall planet’s temperature. Unless the Skeptics realize that – they will stay as born losers, with their sunspots! (the car regulates by thermostat when is cold – and the fen speeds up when you are revving the engine more for speed – that’s mechanical and fails.

    The EXPANSION / SHRINKING of O2&N2 never failed – therefore: in the past, warmings / coolings were ALWAYS localized, never global all ”proxy data” is a crap!!! that’s why: if the Skeptics didn’t exist, Warmist would have invented them… Next time when you look at somebody’s car radiator, remind yourself and appreciate how more efficient is the earth’s brilliant troposphere – as ”SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISM” The ”NORMAL” laws of physics were same in the past, as they are today – and they will be same in 2100. Crap as ”Maunder Minima / Maxima” LIA, GLOBAL cycles, and similar, is the Skeptic’s milestone

    Q: do you think that: during the medieval PHONY GLOBAL warming; the NORMAL laws of physics were different than today?
    Q: do you believe that 12000 BC, 1234AD, 1765AD or in a 100 years from today, the SAME laws of physics didn’t and will not exist?

    Scotty, can you or anybody prove that ”past GLOBAL warmings were global? Who is going to throw the first stone? :

  3. Vconomics says:

    And how will I be getting my $10,000? Will you wire it to me?

    • Vconomics says: ”And how will I be getting my $10,000? Will you wire it to me?”

      Vconomics, you prove that LIA, or medieval ”global” warming were ”GLOBAL” I will personally deliver the money to your gate.

      the NORMAL laws of physics don’t permit warmings/ or coolings to be GLOBAL for more than few hours – anything deviating from that is a doo-doo, from both camps extra heat in the atmosphere is not cumulative; small example:

      When is a solar eclipse – on part of the planet is full eclipse for 6 minutes / partial eclipse for 20 minutes – the big part is only partial eclipse – but doesn’t produce enough GLOBAL cooling – not enough to cool one beer. 2] Mercury blocks 5% of the sunlight all day – that means as if the sun didn’t exist for 30 minutes. Presume: if it wasn’t any sun; earth’s temperature would have being close to ultimate zero Kelvin. From ultimate zero – to +15C above zero – if you take 5% of it – that’s how cold the planet would have got, would have gone colder by 12C; when mercury is in-between – IF IT WASN’T FOR oxygen & nitrogen shrinking instantly, when cooled. But, unless you are into astronomy or astrology – you wouldn’t even know that Mercury is blocking part of the sun. Meteorologist don’t even take in consideration for predicting next day’s temp; if Mercury or Venus is in-between the sun / earth. Each one of them blocks 5% of the sun’s light, not to come here. The truth will win! .


      • rogerthesurf says:

        “Vconomics, you prove that LIA, or medieval ”global” warming were ”GLOBAL” I will personally deliver the money to your gate.”

        Are you offering me $10000 to show that the MWP was global? How many empirical scientific papers do you require?



        ps look on the list on the right of my blog and read some of the papers there under the heading of “The globalness of the Medieaval Warm Period”

      • Hi Roger, ”scientific papers” Roger my friend, paper can take anything – great discoveries AND paper is used in toilets also, because is very receptive…

        2] LIA, Medieval global warmings are the biggest lies since homo-erectus invented language – ”Skeptics” are shooting themselves in the foot with machine gun using proxy data – Warmist are laughing all the way to the bank.

        Roger, warming of the whole planet is not allowed by the normal laws of physics, be fair to yourself and learn the truth, don’t be scared from real proofs:

        3] then you read this post, to see that: what you know is the crap the Warmist know and ignore; tell me when you read those two post, then we can discus science; because all the past ”GLOBAL” warmings and ”GLOBAL” coolings were NEVER global – Warmist are using the skeptics religion, to fleece the urban sheep… be a good sport and read those two posts – don’t suffer from truth phobia as the most of them. the truth always wins on the end!!! Cheers!!! if you are corect, I undertake to give you $11000 bucks

        • rogerthesurf says:

          So I take it that you went to my blog and read the papers on the Medieval Warm Period then?

          So I take it that you went to my blog and read the papers on the Medieval Warm Period then?

          By the way, if we can’t rely on the scientific process, papers and the research contained therein, we may as well go out and pray for guidance from Gaia or perhaps where the UN get their inspiration from. For example, such “deities” as Alice Bailey and her friends such as Djwal Khul. ( lookup 2nd paragraph and click on Djwal Khul aka as DK or the tibetan) and Koot Hoomi

          It is concerning to realise that anything from the UN is based on these “people”



          • Roger, I’m sorry, the “scientific process” does not exist in climate. The reasons for this are:
            1. It is almost impossible to get a paper by an academic published in the academic journals that contradicts the “consensus”.
            2. It is almost impossible to get a paper published by an non-academic (whatever it says) in the academic journals
            3. It is impossible to get a paper published by a non-academic that contradicts what the “academic consensus” is on climate in the academic journals.

            In other words the academic journals are no better than climate porn – titillating rubbish printed to be consumed by a small group of academics with an extreme bias on climate.

            Unlike many subjects, good work on climate is not restricted by the need for laboratories or universities facilities to “academia”, so the real intelligent work is often being done outside universities and being published on the blogs where it is subject to thorough peer review in the real sense (and not in the sense of “I’ll scratch your back on this if you scratch my back as it’ll help us both get grants).

        • rogerthesurf says: ”So I take it that you went to my blog and read the papers on the Medieval Warm Period then?”

          Yes Roger, I always have an open mind – I did go and as expected; what you have is from the Pagan Religion, nothing new to surprise me… b] the offer still stands: ”if I’m wrong / you are correct – I will personally deliver you $11000 Australian dollars”; lets Mike be the witness, he is more on your side.

          yes Roger, we can’t relay on anything ”scientific” that comes from those shonky ”researchers” BUT we can relay on the ”normal” laws of physics – those laws were same during the Medieval ”not so global” period – were same laws during LIA as they are today, and they will be the same in 100y from now. When you are guided by those laws – is like traveling in time – you will know if something did happen; and if it did, what really happened and what ”’cannot” happen in 100y from now. Whatever the honest laws of physics don’t approve of = didn’t happen and will not happen!!! Everything can be replicated in the controlled environment, no need to wait 100y and see that they are wrong, after they screw your country and the world. If the public on the street did know what I have – lots of the top Warmist would have being in jail. Unfortunately, people like you and Mike are standing between the truth and the Warmist…

          Roger, if you learn how to use those laws of physics – you can judge by yourself correctly, if something is correct or not, whatever crap they come up with. b] also you should learn about the ”SELF ADJUSTING TEMPERATURE Mechanism the planet earth has” then you can stop the New Zealand bureaucracy and Greens destroying your country, I heard that New Zealand is a beautiful country. But, by using the outdated Pagan beliefs = you are only giving oxygen to those criminals. The 24 carat truth is not complicated at all – easy to prove – that’s what the Warmist are scared off, and most of the religious ”Skeptics”. I wish I can speak better English…

          P.s. Roger, whatever you find on Wikipedia, it has being put there by the clever Warmist, to confuse the ignorant, not to inform – don’t blame them – when you learn about those two things I suggested, then you can judge wikipedians – but by using the old pagan beliefs = you are only wasting your life
          Read those two post I recommended, will be like turning the lights for you, you can see clear the thing as they really are. Roger, climatologist didn’t start lying in the 80’s – lying has always being their bread and butter. MGW, LIA as ”global” events were invented by the same criminals that prepared foundation for today’s Warmist lies! By, the honest Skeptics using all the pagan crap – they are shooting themselves in the foot, with a machine-gun Go for it Roger, do it for your country!

    • I will put it on an iceberg and float it to you.

  4. Derek Alker says:

    Have you heard of Peter Laux Mike? He has had a very similar challenge to this for several years now. May be you would like to join him and make it a 20,000 dollar prize.

    btw is there a prize for disproving global warming and greenhouse effect “theory”. Probably not, I and the Slayers have already won that one, if it existed..

    • The point about this prize is the idiots who put up “prizes” for “deniers” to disprove manmade global warming.

      It’s not possible to disprove something until it’s first been proven.

      Even though CO2 should be a warming gas, even that theory is still an untested hypothesis. There are also ways CO2 could be a cooling gas. I know of no way to distinguish man-made warming from natural warming. I’m not even sure how one would test the hypothesis according to the “scientific method”. Presumably one needs a control – and unless we clone the earth we don’t have an experimental control.

      Then you would have to prove that the rise in CO2 is manmade – and not a result of natural warming. Again I know of no way to prove the rise is “human”. I would assume it was – but I could not prove it myself in a scientifically valid way.

      However, that’s all academic, because it is logically impossible to prove “warming” in a period without warming.

      • rogerthesurf says:

        I disagree,

        All hypothesis’ have necessary conditions. In the case of AGW there are a host of necessary conditions, any one of them disproved, disproves the whole theory.

        Example 1. Correlation of atmospheric CO2 levels with global temperature.
        A correlation is not a proof, but it is a necessary condition. Disprove the correlation and you have disproved AGW.
        Example 2. There must be empirical measurements of global warming. If no global warming is measured or is negative, this necessary condition is disproved and once again the hypothesis is invalidated at least for the present. Simply if there is no global warming, there is no anthropogenic component of it.
        Note: no global warming has been measured for more than 15 years by NOAA and NASA in spite of these organisations having the absolute latest in technology and equipment. This is high quality empirical data and is easily available to the public. It is even possible to use Microsoft Excel to run a least squares regression and prove this to oneself.

        It is easy to think up a good number of necessary conditions that destroy AGW. Many are not practical to prove either way, (such as “are the Medieval Warm period and other historical warmings different from the current alleged warming?”) or is the current alleged warming greater than previous warmings etc.



        • Roger, I don’t think we fundamentally disagree – but yes, “proven” is not the ideal word.

          Perhaps “provable” – at least something that is testable.

          Take the most obvious example. They said “surface temperature” represents the planet’s temperature. They then said is would “unequivocally” warm by such an amount. This is a very simple thing to disprove which we have.

          Except …. when it doesn’t warm as they predict, they then say “but the ocean ate the heat” (I think that’s just one of a dozen other excuses). In other words, they introduce an entirely new and spurious figure to UPJUST the data to make it fit their prediction.

          Now to “disprove” them, we not only have to show it hasn’t warmed as they predicted, but we have to disprove each and everyone of the dozen or so excuses … and if we did that. they would just come up with more.

          Of course, the scientific method requires them to admit their models failed, and for them to produce a new measure for this “surface temp + what the ocean”. They then have to produce a new prediction, and we wait a suitable period to test this new prediction out.

          But if we point this out to them that this is how THEY MUST proceed in science — the more honest ones (and there are woefully few of them) will then start making other excuses like “we expect flats” and even “natural variation”. Again this is post-justification, because if they “expert flats” * variation, then any real scientist would have increased the range of possible predictions to include this variation, rather than added it post-hoc after their predictions failed.

          So, what I wanted to say by “something must be proven” – is that there must be a coherent and logical argument explaining what is and is not being taken into account with a quantifiable prediction which gives clear testable limits of expected outcomes.

          • rogerthesurf says:


            Thanks for your reply, you are absolutely correct of course. When one has recourse to have any spurious argument in your favour taken seriously then of course one can never lose an argument.
            In my country we have parliamentarians spouting the same nonsense in parliament and no-one seems to have either the understanding or the political guts to call them the idiots they are.
            You may be interested in what is happening here. I have a blog which shows some of my research of how UN Agenda 21 has infiltrated New Zealand (and obviously NZ is not the only country), and consequently our government is abusing property rights, effectively confiscating land in order to replace my city Christchurch in order to build the worlds first “truely sustainable and green” city. At our expense of course.
            You may not realise that AGW stems from Agenda 21 policies and is being promoted world wide not only by governments signing Agenda 21 and changing legislation etc to suit, but also by the noxious organisation known as ICLEI which infiltrates local governments. It is pretty obvious that there are substantial sums of cash involved here but impossible to document.
            Please have a good read.



            PS. I must have scared Dr Keating a little as I notice that he has erased my quite reasonable comments. Never fear though, I have all his stuff ready to post at Its going to make a great story!

          • Interesting article. Reading it – even though I agree with the clean air acts – I began wondering how much commercial pressure from new fuels played a part in forcing people to use their new fuels.

            If so, we may effectively be dealing with a centuries old scam whereby “new” fuels are are introduced with draconian laws brought in to force consumers to buy them.

            I’m sure this kind of “tyranny” by the political classes forcing their views on everyone else is as old as the hills. They used to get away with it in the past, because it was the political class of the journalists, reporting on the political class in parliament. And as they all came from pretty much the same mould, they just told everyone else what to do and there was nothing we could do about it.

            Because how do you organise anything against the political class that control all the press and therefore effectively tell the public who to vote for (not us)

            The big difference now is that the internet now bypasses the press. These days, we no longer have to get the permission of the press to get our views published in their journals. We no longer have to fit in which the poltiics of the political class to get a voice heard.

            As such, I think we are seeing a sea change in the balance of power between the political establishment and their cronies in the media, and the ordinary people like us

            These days, we have far more power and are far more able to organise and campaign without ever once involving a journalist.

            The result is that we now have very much a two-stream media on global warming.

            There is the old stream “mainstream media” whose views are ardently pro-warmist.
            Then we have the new and now current mainstream on climate – and we are overwhelmingly skeptic.

            But the now papers still try to portray us as a backwater.

            So, in a sense global warming is a fight between two communication media — alstyle press and TV and new style peer-to-peer blogging. comments and facebook.

            And what most skeptics fail to realise – is that we are the mainstream now – and we are actually far far more powerful in terms of persuading public opinion than we imagine.

      • deminthon says:

        “It’s not possible to disprove something until it’s first been proven.”

        You may well be the most stupid person on the planet.

      • deminthon says:

        “Even though CO2 should be a warming gas, even that theory is still an untested hypothesis. There are also ways CO2 could be a cooling gas. ”

        CO2 traps heat. It can’t untrap heat.

        “I know of no way to distinguish man-made warming from natural warming.”

        So what? You’re an ignorant imbecile. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels is distinguished from other CO2 by isotope signature.

        • A gas that can aborb IR will also emit it. That is fundamental physics.

          The reason CO2 and other gases act have a “greenhouse effect”, is that the atmosphere is colder and therefore there is more absorption that emission.

  5. Derek Alker says:

    Oh, I think I have found one..
    Excerpt –
    “In his announcement of the $10,000 award, which comes just a couple months after the release of his book, Keating says that climate change deniers today are engaged in a campaign very similar to the one waged by tobacco advocates to deny a link between smoking and lung cancer in an attempt to deceive the public.

    “I am certain my money is safe,” he says. “They are in the business of denial and deception, not science. But, if someone could give me a scientific proof global warming isn’t real, it would be worth the money.” ”
    End of excerpt.

    I will have a longer look at it later and then probably put in my proofs.
    However, I somehow doubt (read KNOW) they will be judged according to the scientific method…. Climate progress is a well known shill site of AGW.

  6. Your money is safe but its a good idea. With hundreds of billions spent (much more if we count foregone growth) there should be volumes of proof of it happening by now if it were not a fraud.

    • I love the irony – they have billions to spend on research “proving” manmade global warming and certainly couldn’t prove what they say is “unequivocal” “setttled science” — and then they ask us skeptics who get no public money – and most like me get no money at all – to “disprove” something they haven’t yet been able to prove.

      Disproving their non-science theories is like disproving god, whenever we offer a proof, they’ll just change the reason for believing. So no matter what we do we can never win because we have to disprove each and every one of an infinite possibly contorted arguments they can use to “believe” in global warming/God, and because of the nature of this kind of religious belief, whether global warming or god, they’ll only accept “evidence” from true believers.

  7. Vconomics says:

    Regardless of what I say, you guys are just going to brush it aside. Global warming and rise sea levels isn’t a debate, it’s fact. It’s like arguing whether the Earth travels around the Sun. Small countries, like the Maldives, that are just above sea level, are disappearing. Hurricanes are getting worse because the Ocean temperature is rising. We now have a shark problem on Eastern Canada because sharks are able to survive in those once cold waters. There’s plenty of evidance around, you just have to be willing to look. It’s not rocket science either, I learned the greenhouse effect in grade 7 … yes, this is grade 7 science!

    • It isn’t whether you say it. It is whether you have facts. Provide evidence the Maldives have, at least largely, disappeared because of the last 35 years of “catastrophic warming”. Provide proof that the records are all wrong and hurricanes are increasing rather than reducing.

      If you can’t do that provide evidence that even a single one of the politicians, churnalists and eco-activists who have pushed the scare isn’t personally an obscene lying parasitic fascist whore, who can never be trusted on any subject, by showing where they have apologised for their previous counterfactual claims.

    • Vconomics – thanks for the post.

      Global “warming” is not a fact – it is a measurement over a period.
      Should you take a measurement since the ice-age it has warmed.
      If you take a measurement since the little-ice — my goodness! It’s warmed. From 1940 it cooled. From the medieval warm period, it is more than likely that it has cooled.

      If you take a measurement from the first prediction I found in an IPCC report in 2001 — it hasn’t warmed significantly. It therefore isn’t currently warming.

      No one has been able to explain why it is not currently warming – let alone provide scientific proof as to why “it is warming” – because it clearly is not.

      And even if there had been warming – it is impossible to prove it is man-made, because as I’ve said whilst we expect the CO2 rise to be human, no one can prove it is human.

    • rogerthesurf says:


      You had better forget what you learnt at school as “fact” and start to use your brain. For the last 20 years anything taught at school that has the word “sustainability” in it is suspect. This is because of the influence of the UN via their Agenda21 project where they have infiltrated our schools. Read my blog at and be sure to read all the links and you may see why. I’m afraid that you need to look at facts and use your own brain because schools are definitely letting us down. I believe that the next step in progress is to dumb down mathematics through the “Sustainable Mathematics” program although it has several different names world wide I believe.

      Also the subject of this blog is not “Global Warming” because climates change naturally. The question is whether any change is caused by man – viz CO2.



      • Roger, you are only half correct. The truth: climate changes constantly – GLOBAL warmings are an avalanche of crap:
        Wet/sunny weather – good/bad weather = that’s weather; for few days.

        Summer climate – winter climate – sea-level climate – high altitude climate – tropical climate – temperate climate – desert climate – rainforest climate – wet climate – dry climate; BUT, sometimes wet climate gets dry / dry climate gets wet / rains. On the other hand, ‘’GLOBAL’’ warming, or global cooling overall doesn’t exist – that’s what the NORMAL laws of physics say! Some places gets hotter days than previous years – other places instantly / simultaneously gets colder days (but warmer nights) than previous years – otherwise the winds would have stopped; the planet is a big place! Q: can you prevent going from ”winter climate” into ”summer climate” by imposing carbon tax?

        B]Concentrating on a small place difference in temp and referring it as ‘’GLOBAL’’ was the basic climatologist lie since Darwin published his book

    • Yes, Vconomics; they have done a good job of you in school – you should contact your class-mates and take the teachers in a class action case…

      Many lands are sinking, other surfacing, by buckling the tectonic plates – Maldives sinking – other mountains are growing by an inch a year – we should be grateful for that; BECAUSE: if that wasn’t happening – in only the past million years, all the land would have eroded into the sea – and the ”highest point off land” would have being 2km below the seawater, it’s enough water to cover all the land if it was flattened by erosion, by over 2km of water. Can you dig it?

    • deminthon says:

      Vconomics: Scottish Sceptic says that you can’t disprove something unless it’s first been proven … proving that he’s a moron. He’s an ignorant imbecile and a dishonest jackass (a typical denier), so indeed it doesn’t matter what you say.

      [Mod: your comments are unacceptable and all you are doing is showing yourself up]

  8. stewgreen says:

    Yew I thought you were talking about the Peter Laux Mike prize.
    i wasn’t aware that dumb warmist are asking skeptis to prove a negative, since that is a logical fallacy. you cannot prove all negatives,nyou can only prove positives.

  9. Here’s the Peter Laux challenge at Dennis Rancourt’s Climate Guy blog. The comments are worth reading.

  10. Vconomics says:

    Oh god, conspiracy theories now. You guys have been watching too much History Channel.

    • rogerthesurf says:

      What is AGW and its supposed antidote which, in case you don’t know it, will wreck our economies, but a very good conspiracy?
      When I say wreck our economies, just think of China between 1953 and 1978.



      Better start using your brain boy

    • Vconomics, you need to understand that most skeptics are really just interested in discussing how best to use the data and really aren’t that interested in what “it means”.

      So, e.g. we will spend ages talking about how to measure temperature and critiquing the methods to predict the global climate … but that doesn’t say anything AT ALL about our view of whether or not CO2 is “a good thing”.

      So, please don’t confuse rejection of your argument with being against you personally or your values.

      Also, please understand that most skeptics have worked in areas where lives or at least livelihoods depend on being very certain you are right with how you apply science. As a simple example – skeptics might be the type of people who build bridges. In a team of 10 engineers (or even one engineer and 9 sales staff), even if one person has doubts about the safety, they are expected to make a very very robust case to critique the work of others.

      We have worked in areas, where we might be the only person looking at an issue, we have to be dead certain we are right as we know that if we say something is unsafe – or uneconomic – then lives could be lost on the one hand – or jobs on the other if we don’t go ahead. So, we are used to getting shouted at and abused and called names and having our integrity questioned and being told we don’t know what we are talking about … until finally people understand that we have no choice but to say what we say … and the situation is resolved by agreeing with us.

      The key is “dead-certain”
      Skeptics come from areas where there is a culture of robustly critiquing & challenging each other’s work. And if we think an some reasoning or facts are not robust, we expect to have them challenged robustly and in return we expect to robustly challenge what others say.

      This process can appear very hostile to anyone who has not experienced it before, but as soon as you realise there’s actually no personal animosity involved, it can become quite fun.

      And we’ve all had the experience of having our own cherished work which we thought was “perfect” torn apart – and whilst it is not pleasant at the time – we learn that having good quality critique is an essential part of the process of being “dead-certain”.

      • Scottish Sceptic says: ”you need to understand that most skeptics are really just interested in discussing how best to use the data and really aren’t that interested in what “it means”

        That’s the biggest tragedy…

        • I meant “mean” in the religious or moral sense — as in the “meaning of life” or whether it is “good” or “bad”

          I doubt many skeptics really have a strong view on whether 1C warming is by itself good or bad (in the absence of knowing what it would do).

          In contrast, your typical alarmist has a very detailed idea of what it “means” – but often has only the vaguest idea of any actual figure – indeed some don’t even know if it’s warming or cooling that is “bad” — they just apply that idea to any change that is supposedly human.

  11. Brad says:

    97% of scientists believe it to be true, or at least that’s what I’ve been told. OK, so theirs your proof. I will be awaiting my $10,000 on the Maldives after I fly into the newly designed and soon to be constructed airport being built on those poor drowning islands. :-)

    • I was just contemplating what … if … by some miracle … maybe aliens landing, a time machine, etc. and happening to say “oh yes here’s the proof”, how I would wriggle out of paying the $10,000

      The first, is very simple … i didn’t say which currency … and being Scottish I can pick and chose.
      The second, is I didn’t say which base. And since I like computer programming, I would pick base 2.

      That’s the problem with being a skeptic – no matter how crazy the idea – there’s always that niggling doubt that you might be wrong.

      • Scottish Sceptic says: ” there’s always that niggling doubt that you might be wrong”

        Well I know 101% beyond any reasonable doubt that I am correct – because I use the NORMAL / HONEST laws of physics. Same laws of physics were 1000y ago, 300y ago as last year, and there will be exactly the same laws of physics in 100y from today.
        b] I know that: earth’s atmosphere has oxygen & nitrogen – they create the horizontal and vertical winds – those winds are regulating overall temp on the planet, not CO2 – that’s why I’m a denier.
        Warmist know obviously that is no global warming – that’s why they have to invent lies constantly – the only people that genuinely believe on the phony GLOBAL warming are the ”Skeptics” For them oxygen &nitrogen on this planet don’t exist… tragic..

        Scotty, I hope you are not going to hate me for bringing some ”real” truth in the debate.

        • The one thing I learnt after a physics degree when I went into industry is that “it might work in theory – but does it work in practice”.

          Electronics is a particularly hard task-master. In the old days before computers, one would sit down and work out what the “physics” said the circuit should do. I will boast and say I was better than most – but I certainly made my fair share of errors – and you soon learn not to say it works until it’s actually working on the bench.

          That’s why engineers are so cautious – they are constantly having to check whether their theories work in practice. It teaches humility and that you should always have “that niggling doubt that you might be wrong”

          • Brad says:

            BTW, I visited the Glendronach distillery earlier this year. Nice scotch if your into that sort of thing and it is a true Craft distillery. The fermentation tanks are fantastic. But I digress.

      • Mike, you have the knowledge, your English is perfect – you can do lots of damage to the Warmist, but have to remember what you have learned ”before” you started debating on the net!

        then, if somebody asked you those simple questions – you would have known the answers, without any ”doubt”:, without any reservation:

        Q: do you know that the earth has oxygen& nitrogen, lots of it?
        Q: do you know that they expand when warmed and shrink when cooled, ”’instantly”?
        Q: do you know that: where the troposphere expands up; there is -90C?

        Today Warmist& Skeptics don’t know that the earth has oxygen &nitrogen – that’s why they are comparing the earth with the moon and Venus…?

        Let me tell you the ”precision” the earth’s ”SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISM” has:
        Example: when you light a cigarette – it produces heat for the one cubic inch around where is burning – that cubic inch of air expands and becomes two inches by volume – the extra cubic inch doesn’t go in the yard, because is already air there – instead, as warmed, it goes up to the end of the troposphere and discharges that heat – swaps it for enough coldness to cancel the heat produced by the fire – and one cubic inch of air continues going up and down until you put the cigarette off, then it stops instantly, not to bring more coldness than necessary. That same thing happens for heat produced by CO2, the erupting volcano, heat from smelter for melting iron ore, and for any other heat. Troposphere expands and shrinks constantly, as required, like piano acordian.

        Q: how does the troposphere knows how much exactly heat to waste for every individual day?
        A: the good Lord has inserted a thermometer in EVERY atom of oxygen &nitrogen – those thermometers are ordering the atoms to expand / shrink ”precisely” according to heat/coldness!

        Therefore: for the last 150y, the sun produced lots of heat on the earth, lots of heat produced by the geothermal, lots of heat produced by burning fossil fuel – all that heat is gone, all of it – since the ”middle” of LIA until today hasn’t accumulated enough ”extra” heat ”overall”, what one cigarette burning can produce!!! That’s infallible precision

        LIA is the Skeptic’s biggest weapon – what it was? A: river Thames was frozen for few days – WOW! What was the medieval ”global” warming? A: genuine proof exist, record from a farmer in Buckingham-shire was producing an ”extra” bushel of grain per acre – another WOW! Mike, planet is a very big place – the ”globe” is NOT spinning around Pommy land / Pomgolia…

        yes there was an ice age for 12000 years, but it wasn’t ”global” cannot be global – the ”honest” laws of physics don’t permit that – unless you have abolished those laws of physics by legislation in parliament and in UN – otherwise, those laws don’t compromise!!!
        You have appropriate knowledge, use it and give hell to the Warmist -but, as long as you use the shonky unreliable IPCC data – they will always see you guys as 4 year old kids, playing on the sandpit…Please learn first about the ”self adjusting mechanism the planet earth has”!

  12. Pingback: Key Articles | ScottishSceptic

  13. Don B says:

    In 2005 there was a straightforward $10,000 bet. Solar physicists Galena Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet climate modeler James Annan that global temperatures would be cooler during 2012-2017 compared to 1998-2003.

  14. Daphne Wallace says:

    There are 900 Coal mines on fire.Makes’ pollution/gases released. Kuwait oil fields were burned, devastating the world climate. We forgot to plant trees in the 1990’s. This type of ‘global warming’ is caused by lack of vegetation. Our fault.

  15. Pingback: Global warming is not a scientific issue. | ScottishSceptic

  16. tomas50 says:

    You say the “sceptics” Skeptics are not funded——Here’s Proof that they are——-How about sending me a $1,000. . . .

    • Your link to the “Union of Concerned Scientists” which, if you are honest you will admit is not a group of scientists, and thus fraudulent, lists some organisations of which only Heartland is anywhere close to primarily about science. It is recorded as getting $675K.

      Now perhaps you will where Mike said no sceptics get any money, or perhaps you will apologise for lying by saying he did, or perhaps you will simply prove that the default position for any alarmist is that they arte lying – choose one.

      I said that the alarmists get hundreds of billions and that the sceptics get millions at most. Perhaps you will publicly acknowledge that I was right. Also that a hundred billion is a considerably larger number than a million. And send me $100 for educating you.

      • I think the $675k is their total budget of which perhaps less than a 1/6 is spent on climate.

        As for funding – who was getting the Russian Oil money? Look at how all the big oil companies have wind divisions. It would be laughable if they were paying people to campaign against their own business investments.

  17. Pingback: 10 mil dólares para quem provar que o aquecimento global não existe | Solam

  18. Pingback: Desafio para céticos do aquecimento global | Envolverde

  19. Pingback: Jornal Joseense News » Físico oferece 10 mil dólares para quem provar que o aquecimento global não existe

  20. deminthon says:

    “On reflection I realised that it was impossible to disprove something when it hasn’t first been proven.”

    Every time I think that the limits of stupidity from deniers has been reached, they prove me wrong.

    • Totally agree – they deny 17 years of warming and then have the gall to suggest they’ve proven anything. How can you disprove anything when instead of admitting the temperature has not warming they just point blank deny it.

      That’s the problem with these catastrophists – when the evidence comes up proving them wrong, they just deny it exists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>